Infection control strategies for preventing the transmission of meticillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) in nursing homes for older people (Review)

Background: Nursing homes for older people provide an environment likely to promote the acquisition and spread of meticillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA), putting residents at increased risk of colonisation and infection. It is recognised that infection prevention and control strategies are important in preventing and controlling MRSA transmission.

Objectives: To determine the effects of infection prevention and control strategies for preventing the transmission of MRSA in nursing homes for older people.

Search methods: In August 2013, for this third update, we searched the Cochrane Wounds Group Specialised Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL, The Cochrane Library), Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (DARE, The Cochrane Library), Ovid MEDLINE, OVID MEDLINE (In-process and Other Non-Indexed Citations), Ovid EMBASE, EBSCO CINAHL, Web of Science and the Health Technology Assessment (HTA) website. Research in progress was sought through Current Clinical Trials, Gateway to Reseach, and HSRProj (Health Services Research Projects in Progress).

Selection criteria: All randomised and controlled clinical trials, controlled before and after studies and interrupted time series studies of infection prevention and control interventions in nursing homes for older people were eligible for inclusion.

Data collection and analysis: Two review authors independently reviewed the results of the searches. Another review author appraised identified papers and undertook data extraction which was checked by a second review author.

Main results: For this third update only one study was identified, therefore it was not possible to undertake a meta-analysis. A cluster randomised controlled trial in 32 nursing homes evaluated the effect of an infection control education and training programme on MRSA prevalence. The primary outcome was MRSA prevalence in residents and staff, and a change in infection control audit scores which measured adherence to infection control standards. At the end of the 12 month study, there was no change in MRSA prevalence between intervention and control sites, while mean infection control audit scores were significantly higher in the intervention homes compared with control homes.

Authors' conclusions: There is a lack of research evaluating the effects on MRSA transmission of infection prevention and control strategies in nursing homes. Rigorous studies should be conducted in nursing homes, involving residents and staff to test interventions that have been specifically designed for this unique environment.

Any versus long-term prescribing of high risk medications in older people using 2012 Beers Criteria: results from three cross-sectional samples of primary care records for 2003/4, 2007/8 and 2011/12

Background: High risk medications are commonly prescribed to older US patients. Currently, less is known about high risk medication prescribing in other Western Countries, including the UK. We measured trends and correlates of high risk medication prescribing in a subset of the older UK population (community/institutionalized) to inform harm minimization efforts. Methods: Three cross-sectional samples from primary care electronic clinical records (UK Clinical Practice Research Datalink, CPRD) in fiscal years 2003/04, 2007/08 and 2011/12 were taken. This yielded a sample of 13,900 people aged 65 years or over from 504 UK general practices. High risk medications were defined by 2012 Beers Criteria adapted for the UK. Using descriptive statistical methods and regression modelling, prevalence of ‘any’ (drugs prescribed at least once per year) and ‘long-term’ (drugs prescribed all quarters of year) high risk medication prescribing and correlates were determined. Results: While polypharmacy rates have risen sharply, high risk medication prevalence has remained stable across a decade. A third of older (65+) people are exposed to high risk medications, but only half of the total prevalence was long-term (any = 38.4 % [95 % CI: 36.3, 40.5]; long-term = 17.4 % [15.9, 19.9] in 2011/12). Long-term but not any high risk medication exposure was associated with older ages (85 years or over). Women and people with higher polypharmacy burden were at greater risk of exposure; lower socio-economic status was not associated. Ten drugs/drug classes accounted for most of high risk medication prescribing in 2011/12. Conclusions: High risk medication prescribing has not increased over time against a background of increasing polypharmacy in the UK. Half of patients receiving high risk medications do so for less than a year. Reducing or optimising the use of a limited number of drugs could dramatically reduce high risk medications in older people. Further research is needed to investigate why the oldest old and women are at greater risk. Interventions to reduce high risk medications may need to target shorter and long-term use separately.

Improving appropriate polypharmacy for older people in primary care: selecting components of an evidence-based intervention to target prescribing and dispensing.

Background
The use of multiple medicines (polypharmacy) is increasingly common in older people. Ensuring that patients receive the most appropriate combinations of medications (appropriate polypharmacy) is a significant challenge. The quality of evidence to support the effectiveness of interventions to improve appropriate polypharmacy is low. Systematic identification of mediators of behaviour change, using the Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF), provides a theoretically robust evidence base to inform intervention design. This study aimed to (1) identify key theoretical domains that were perceived to influence the prescribing and dispensing of appropriate polypharmacy to older patients by general practitioners (GPs) and community pharmacists, and (2) map domains to associated behaviour change techniques (BCTs) to include as components of an intervention to improve appropriate polypharmacy in older people in primary care.

Methods
Semi-structured interviews were conducted with members of each healthcare professional (HCP) group using tailored topic guides based on TDF version 1 (12 domains). Questions covering each domain explored HCPs’ perceptions of barriers and facilitators to ensuring the prescribing and dispensing of appropriate polypharmacy to older people. Interviews were audio-recorded and transcribed verbatim. Data analysis involved the framework method and content analysis. Key domains were identified and mapped to BCTs based on established methods and discussion within the research team.

Results
Thirty HCPs were interviewed (15 GPs, 15 pharmacists). Eight key domains were identified, perceived to influence prescribing and dispensing of appropriate polypharmacy: ‘Skills’, ‘Beliefs about capabilities’, ‘Beliefs about consequences’, ‘Environmental context and resources’, ‘Memory, attention and decision processes’, ‘Social/professional role and identity’, ‘Social influences’ and ‘Behavioural regulation’. Following mapping, four BCTs were selected for inclusion in an intervention for GPs or pharmacists: ‘Action planning’, ‘Prompts/cues’, ‘Modelling or demonstrating of behaviour’ and ‘Salience of consequences’. An additional BCT (‘Social support or encouragement’) was selected for inclusion in a community pharmacy-based intervention in order to address barriers relating to interprofessional working that were encountered by pharmacists.

Conclusions
Selected BCTs will be operationalised in a theory-based intervention to improve appropriate polypharmacy for older people, to be delivered in GP practice and community pharmacy settings. Future research will involve development and feasibility testing of this intervention.

Interventions to improve the appropriate use of polypharmacy in older people: a Cochrane systematic review

Objective: To summarise the findings of an updated Cochrane review of interventions aimed at improving the appropriate use of polypharmacy in older people. Design: Cochrane systematic review. Multiple electronic databases were searched including MEDLINE, EMBASE and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (from inception to November 2013). Hand searching of references was also performed. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs), controlled clinical trials, controlled before-and-after studies and interrupted time series analyses reporting on interventions targeting appropriate polypharmacy in older people in any healthcare setting were included if they used a validated measure of prescribing appropriateness. Evidence quality was assessed using the Cochrane risk of bias tool and GRADE (Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation).
Setting: All healthcare settings. 
Participants: Older people (≥65 years) with ≥1 long-term condition who were receiving polypharmacy (≥4 regular medicines).
Primary and secondary outcome measures: Primary outcomes were the change in prevalence of appropriate polypharmacy and hospital admissions. Medication-related problems (eg, adverse drug reactions), medication adherence and quality of life were included as secondary outcomes.
Results: 12 studies were included: 8 RCTs, 2 cluster RCTs and 2 controlled before-and-after studies. 1 study involved computerised decision support and 11 comprised pharmaceutical care approaches across various settings. Appropriateness was measured using validated tools, including the Medication Appropriateness Index, Beers’ criteria and Screening Tool of Older Person’s Prescriptions (STOPP)/ Screening Tool to Alert doctors to Right Treatment (START). The interventions demonstrated a reduction in inappropriate prescribing. Evidence of effect on hospital admissions and medication-related problems was conflicting. No differences in health-related quality of life were reported.
Conclusions: The included interventions demonstrated improvements in appropriate polypharmacy based on reductions in inappropriate prescribing. However, it remains unclear if interventions resulted in clinically significant improvements (eg, in terms of hospital admissions). Future intervention studies would benefit from available guidance on intervention development, evaluation and reporting to facilitate replication in clinical practice.

Relationships Between Deprivation and the Self-reported Health of Older People in Northern Ireland

Objectives: There are few studies on relationships between deprivation and the self-reported health of people aged over 64 years, and no studies fully representative of Northern Ireland’s older population. This paper addresses this gap. Methods: Deprivation of older people as reported in the 2001 and 2011 Censuses and the relationship with self-reported health are analyzed over a ten-year span using multilevel modeling. The data are from the Northern Ireland Longitudinal Study (NILS) linked to 2001-11 Census returns. Deprivation measures include housing tenure, property-value, access to a car, educational, employment and area-level income-deprivation. Results: Older people suffering deprivation face a significant health disadvantage over a ten-year time span. Discussion: This health disadvantage is stronger in men than in women, likely due to conservative gender roles prevalent among Northern Ireland’s older population, leading to psychological distress among deprived men. The analysis found strongly significant area-level effects, aggravating the health impact of deprivation.

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.

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.

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.