Pharmaceutical strategies towards optimising polypharmacy in older people

This paper focuses on the issue of polypharmacy in older people and potential pharmaceutical strategies to optimize the use of multiple medicines. Although polypharmacy has long been viewed negatively, increasing emphasis is being placed on the difference between appropriate and inappropriate polypharmacy. This is largely being driven by the increasing prevalence of multimorbidity and the use of evidence-based guidelines. In this paper, we outline a number of key considerations that are pertinent to optimizing polypharmacy, notably prescribing appropriate polypharmacy, pharmaceutical formulations, the involvement of older people in clinical trials and patient adherence.

Time-limited home-care reablement services for maintaining and improving the functional independence of older adults

Background: Reablement, also known as restorative care, is one possible approach to home-care services for older adults at risk of functional decline. Unlike traditional home-care services, reablement is frequently time-limited (usually six to 12 weeks) and aims to maximise independence by offering an intensive multidisciplinary, person-centred and goal-directed intervention. Objectives:Objectives To assess the effects of time-limited home-care reablement services (up to 12 weeks) for maintaining and improving the functional independence of older adults (aged 65 years or more) when compared to usual home-care or wait-list control group. Search methods:We searched the following databases with no language restrictions during April to June 2015: the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL); MEDLINE (OvidSP); Embase (OvidSP); PsycINFO (OvidSP); ERIC; Sociological Abstracts; ProQuest Dissertations and Theses; CINAHL (EBSCOhost); SIGLE (OpenGrey); AgeLine and Social Care Online. We also searched the reference lists of relevant studies and reviews as well as contacting authors in the field.Selection criteria:We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs), cluster randomised or quasi-randomised trials of time-limited reablement services for older adults (aged 65 years or more) delivered in their home; and incorporated a usual home-care or wait-list control group. Data collection and analysis:Two authors independently assessed studies for inclusion, extracted data, assessed the risk of bias of individual studies and considered quality of the evidence using GRADE. We contacted study authors for additional information where needed.Main results:Two studies, comparing reablement with usual home-care services with 811 participants, met our eligibility criteria for inclusion; we also identified three potentially eligible studies, but findings were not yet available. One included study was conducted in Western Australia with 750 participants (mean age 82.29 years). The second study was conducted in Norway (61 participants; mean age 79 years). We are very uncertain as to the effects of reablement compared with usual care as the evidence was of very low quality for all of the outcomes reported. The main findings were as follows. Functional status: very low quality evidence suggested that reablement may be slightly more effective than usual care in improving function at nine to 12 months (lower scores reflect greater independence; standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.30; 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.53 to -0.06; 2 studies with 249 participants). Adverse events: reablement may make little or no difference to mortality at 12 months’ follow-up (RR 0.97; 95% CI 0.74 to 1.29; 2 studies with 811 participants) or rates of unplanned hospital admission at 24 months (RR 0.94; 95% CI 0.85 to 1.03; 1 study with 750 participants). The very low quality evidence also means we are uncertain whether reablement may influence quality of life (SMD -0.23; 95% CI -0.48 to 0.02; 2 trials with 249 participants) or living arrangements (RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.62 to 1.34; 1 study with 750 participants) at time points up to 12 months. People receiving reablement may be slightly less likely to have been approved for a higher level of personal care than people receiving usual care over the 24 months’ follow-up (RR 0.87; 95% CI 0.77 to 0.98; 1 trial, 750 participants). Similarly, although there may be a small reduction in total aggregated home and healthcare costs over the 24-month follow-up (reablement: AUD 19,888; usual care: AUD 22,757; 1 trial with 750 participants), we are uncertain about the size and importance of these effects as the results were based on very low quality evidence. Neither study reported user satisfaction with the serviceAuthors’ conclusions:There is considerable uncertainty regarding the effects of reablement as the evidence was of very low quality according to our GRADE ratings. Therefore, the effectiveness of reablement services cannot be supported or refuted until more robust evidence becomes available. There is an urgent need for high quality trials across different health and social care systems due to the increasingly high profile of reablement services in policy and practice in several countries. 

Withdrawal of Antidementia Drugs in Older People: Who, When and How?

The evidence base to guide withdrawal of antidementia medications in older people with dementia is limited; while some randomised controlled studies have considered discontinuation of cholinesterase inhibitors, no such studies examining discontinuation of the N-Methyl-D-aspartate receptor antagonist memantine have been conducted to date. The purpose of this opinion article was to summarise the existing evidence on withdrawal of cholinesterase inhibitors and memantine, to highlight the key considerations for clinicians when making these prescribing decisions and to offer guidance as to when and how treatment might be discontinued. Until the evidence-base is enhanced by the findings of large scale randomised controlled discontinuation trials of ChEIs and memantine which use multiple, clinically relevant cognitive, functional and behavioural outcome measures, clinicians’ prescribing decisions involve balancing the risks of discontinuation with side-effects and costs of continued treatment. Such decisions must be highly individualised and patient-centred.

Prescribing of Psychoactive Drugs for Older People in Nursing Homes: An Analysis of Treatment Culture

Background There is increasing interest in how culture may affect the quality of healthcare services, and previous research has shown that ‘treatment culture’—of which there are three categories (resident centred, ambiguous and traditional)—in a nursing home may influence prescribing of psychoactive medications. Objective The objective of this study was to explore and understand treatment culture in prescribing of psychoactive medications for older people with dementia in nursing homes. Method Six nursing homes—two from each treatment culture category—participated in this study. Qualitative data were collected through semi-structured interviews with nursing home staff and general practitioners (GPs), which sought to determine participants’ views on prescribing and administration of psychoactive medication, and their understanding of treatment culture and its potential influence on prescribing of psychoactive drugs. Following verbatim transcription, the data were analysed and themes were identified, facilitated by NVivo and discussion within the research team. Results Interviews took place with five managers, seven nurses, 13 care assistants and two GPs. Four themes emerged: the characteristics of the setting, the characteristics of the individual, relationships and decision making. The characteristics of the setting were exemplified by views of the setting, daily routines and staff training. The characteristics of the individual were demonstrated by views on the personhood of residents and staff attitudes. Relationships varied between staff within and outside the home. These relationships appeared to influence decision making about prescribing of medications. The data analysis found that each home exhibited traits that were indicative of its respective assigned treatment culture. Conclusion Nursing home treatment culture appeared to be influenced by four main themes. Modification of these factors may lead to a shift in culture towards a more flexible, resident-centred culture and a reduction in prescribing and use of psychoactive medication. 

‘Potentially inappropriate or specifically appropriate?’ Qualitative evaluation of general practitioners views on prescribing, polypharmacy and potentially inappropriate prescribing in older people

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.

A process evaluation of a cluster randomised trial to reduce potentially inappropriate prescribing in older people in primary care (OPTI-SCRIPT study)

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.

Strategies to prevent oral disease in dependent older people (Protocol).

This is a protocol for a Cochrane Review (Intervention). The objectives are as follows:
To assess the effects and costs of primary, secondary and tertiary strategies to prevent oral disease in dependent older people.

STOPPFrail (Screening Tool of Older Persons Prescriptions in Frail Adults with Limited Life Expectancy): Consensus Validation

Background: To validate STOPPFrail, a list of explicit criteria for potentially inappropriate medications (PIMs) in frailer older adults with limited life expectancy. A Delphi consensus survey of an expert panel (n = 17) comprising specialists in geriatric medicine, clinical pharmacology, palliative care, psychiatry of old age, clinical pharmacy and general practice.
Methods: STOPPFrail criteria was initially created by the authors based on clinical
experience and appraisal of the available literature. Criteria were organised according to physiological system. Each criterion was accompanied by an explanation. Panellists ranked their agreement with each criterion on a 5-point Likert scale and invited to provide written feedback. Criteria with a median Likert response of 4/5 (agree/strongly agree) and a 25th centile of ≥4 were included in the final criteria.
Results: Three Delphi rounds were required. All panellists completed all rounds. Thirty criteria were proposed for inclusion; 26 were accepted. No new criteria were added. The first two criteria suggest deprescribing medications with no indication or where compliance is poor. The remaining 24 criteria include lipid-lowering therapies, alpha-blockers for hypertension, anti-platelets, neuroleptics, proton pump inhibitors, H-2 receptor antagonists, anti-spasmodics, theophylline, leukotriene antagonists, calcium supplements, bone anti-resorptive therapy, selective oestrogen receptor modulators, non-steroidal antiinflammatories, corticosteroids, 5-alpha reductase inhibitors, alpha-1 selective blockers, muscarinic antagonists, oral diabetic agents, ACE-inhibitors, angiotensin receptor blockers, systemic oestrogens, multivitamins, nutritional supplements and prophylactic antibiotics. Anticoagulants and anti-depressants were excluded. Despite incorporation of panellists’ suggestions, memantine and acetyl-cholinesterase inhibitors remained inconclusive.
Conclusion: STOPPFrail comprises 26 criteria, which have been judged by broad consensus, to be potentially inappropriate in frailer older patients with limited life expectancy. STOPPFrail may assist in deprescribing medications in these patients.

A 'before and after' study of nursing students' self-assessed competence in identifying the needs of older patients in hospital using an educational workbook.

Background: A core component of nurse education is clinical practice in order to support the development of clinical skills and competence. Assessment and measurement of the clinical competence of nursing students is important to gauge their professional development and educational needs.

Aim: To evaluate the impact of an Older Persons’ Assessment Educational Workbook (OPAEW) and explore second year nursing students’ competence and their opinions and use of the workbook.

Methods: A ‘before and after’ pre-experimental design was undertaken with n=6 second year nursing students. Outcome measures were the Nursing Competencies Questionnaire and the Self-efficacy in Clinical Performance Scale. Content analysis of workbooks and a survey (n=5) of opinions regarding the workbook was undertaken.

Findings: Pre and post test results for the study (n=5) were tested to determine if there was a relationship between changes in the NCQ and SECP repeated measures and use of an OPAEW. Testing identified evidence of a statistically significant difference for both SECP measures (SECP28 p=0.043; SECP7 p=0.042), with no clear statistical evidence of a difference for the NCQ (p=0.08). A weak negative association (NCQ ρ=-0.600 p=0.285; SECP28 ρ=-0.300 p=0.624; SECP7 ρ=-0.205 p=0.741), was found indicating that those participants who scored the lowest scores at the start of the study, benefited most from the workbook.

Content analysis of the OPAEW (n=5) found that 3 of the 5 participants completed all components of the workbook, with a mean of 1051 words used (SD 281.8). Through the survey (n=5) students reported the workbook as a useful guide when undertaking a patient assessment.

Conclusions: The OPAEW showed potential as an intervention to support the development of nursing students’ competence in older person assessment skills.

A 'before and after' study of nursing students' self-assessed competence in identifying the needs of older patients in hospital using an educational workbook.

Background: A core component of nurse education is clinical practice in order to support the development of clinical skills and competence. Assessment and measurement of the clinical competence of nursing students is important to gauge their professional development and educational needs.

Aim: To evaluate the impact of an Older Persons’ Assessment Educational Workbook (OPAEW) and explore second year nursing students’ competence and their opinions and use of the workbook.

Methods: A ‘before and after’ pre-experimental design was undertaken with n=6 second year nursing students. Outcome measures were the Nursing Competencies Questionnaire and the Self-efficacy in Clinical Performance Scale. Content analysis of workbooks and a survey (n=5) of opinions regarding the workbook was undertaken.

Findings: Pre and post test results for the study (n=5) were tested to determine if there was a relationship between changes in the NCQ and SECP repeated measures and use of an OPAEW. Testing identified evidence of a statistically significant difference for both SECP measures (SECP28 p=0.043; SECP7 p=0.042), with no clear statistical evidence of a difference for the NCQ (p=0.08). A weak negative association (NCQ ρ=-0.600 p=0.285; SECP28 ρ=-0.300 p=0.624; SECP7 ρ=-0.205 p=0.741), was found indicating that those participants who scored the lowest scores at the start of the study, benefited most from the workbook.

Content analysis of the OPAEW (n=5) found that 3 of the 5 participants completed all components of the workbook, with a mean of 1051 words used (SD 281.8). Through the survey (n=5) students reported the workbook as a useful guide when undertaking a patient assessment.

Conclusions: The OPAEW showed potential as an intervention to support the development of nursing students’ competence in older person assessment skills.