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.

PIPc study: development of indicators of potentially inappropriate prescribing in children (PIPc) in primary care using a modified Delphi technique

Objective There is limited evidence regarding the quality of prescribing for children in primary care. Several prescribing criteria (indicators) have been developed to assess the appropriateness of prescribing in older and middle-aged adults but few are relevant to children. The objective of this study was to develop a set of prescribing indicators that can be applied to prescribing or dispensing data sets to determine the prevalence of potentially inappropriate prescribing in children (PIPc) in primary care settings.


Design Two-round modified Delphi consensus method.


Setting Irish and UK general practice.


Participants A project steering group consisting of academic and clinical general practitioners (GPs) and pharmacists was formed to develop a list of indicators from literature review and clinical expertise. 15 experts consisting of GPs, pharmacists and paediatricians from the Republic of Ireland and the UK formed the Delphi panel.


Results 47 indicators were reviewed by the project steering group and 16 were presented to the Delphi panel. In the first round of this exercise, consensus was achieved on nine of these indicators. Of the remaining seven indicators, two were removed following review of expert panel comments and discussion of the project steering group. The second round of the Delphi process focused on the remaining five indicators, which were amended based on first round feedback. Three indicators were accepted following the second round of the Delphi process and the remaining two indicators were removed. The final list consisted of 12 indicators categorised by respiratory system (n=6), gastrointestinal system (n=2), neurological system (n=2) and dermatological system (n=2).


Conclusions The PIPc indicators are a set of prescribing criteria developed for use in children in primary care in the absence of clinical information. The utility of these criteria will be tested in further studies using prescribing databases.

A systematic review of prescribing criteria to evaluate appropriateness of medications in frail older people

This study systematically reviews the published literature regarding inappropriate prescribing in frail individuals aged at least 65 years. Twenty-five of 466 identified studies met the inclusion criteria. All papers measured some surrogate indicators of frailty, such as performance-based tests, cognitive function and functional dependency. Beers criteria were used in 20 studies (74%) to evaluate inappropriate medication use and 36% (9/25) studies used more than one criterion. The prevalence of inappropriate medications ranged widely from 11 to 92%. Only a few studies reported the relationship between potentially inappropriate medication use and surrogate measures of frailty. These diverse findings indicate the need for a standardized measure for assessing appropriateness of medication in frail older individuals. Prescribing tools should address both medication and patient-related factors such as life expectancy and functional status to minimize inappropriate prescribing in frail individuals.

Frailty: A key indicator to minimize inappropriate medication in older people

Older populations are more likely to have multiple co-morbid diseases that require multiple treatments, which make them a large consumer of medications. As a person grows older, their ability to tolerate medications becomes less due to age-related changes in pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics often heading along a path that leads to frailty. Frail older persons often have multiple co-morbidities with signs of impairment in activities of daily living. Prescribing drugs for these vulnerable individuals is difficult and is a potentially unsafe activity. Inappropriate prescribing in older population can be detected using explicit (criterion-based) or implicit (judgment-based) criteria. Unfortunately, most current therapeutic guidelines are applicable only to healthy older adults and cannot be generalized to frail patients. These discrepancies should be addressed either by developing new criteria or by refining the existing tools for frail older people. The first and foremost step is to identify the frail patient in clinical practice by applying clinically validated tools. Once the frail patient has been identified, there is a need for specific measures or criteria to assess appropriateness of therapy that consider such factors as quality of life, functional status and remaining life expectancy and thus modified goals of care.

Interventions to optimise prescribing for older people in care homes

There is a substantial body of evidence that prescribing for care home residents is suboptimal and requires improvement. Consequently, there is a need to identify effective interventions to optimise prescribing and resident outcomes in this context.

The development of the PROMPT (PRescribing Optimally in Middle-aged People’s Treatments) criteria

BACKGROUND: Whilst multimorbidity is more prevalent with increasing age, approximately 30% of middle-aged adults (45-64 years) are also affected. Several prescribing criteria have been developed to optimise medication use in older people (≥65 years) with little focus on potentially inappropriate prescribing (PIP) in middle-aged adults. We have developed a set of explicit prescribing criteria called PROMPT (PRescribing Optimally in Middle-aged People's Treatments) which may be applied to prescribing datasets to determine the prevalence of PIP in this age-group.

METHODS: A literature search was conducted to identify published prescribing criteria for all age groups, with the Project Steering Group (convened for this study) adding further criteria for consideration, all of which were reviewed for relevance to middle-aged adults. These criteria underwent a two-round Delphi process, using an expert panel consisting of general practitioners, pharmacists and clinical pharmacologists from the United Kingdom and Republic of Ireland. Using web-based questionnaires, 17 panellists were asked to indicate their level of agreement with each criterion via a 5-point Likert scale (1 = Strongly Disagree, 5 = Strongly Agree) to assess the applicability to middle-aged adults in the absence of clinical information. Criteria were accepted/rejected/revised dependent on the panel's level of agreement using the median response/interquartile range and additional comments.

RESULTS: Thirty-four criteria were rated in the first round of this exercise and consensus was achieved on 17 criteria which were accepted into the PROMPT criteria. Consensus was not reached on the remaining 17, and six criteria were removed following a review of the additional comments. The second round of this exercise focused on the remaining 11 criteria, some of which were revised following the first exercise. Five criteria were accepted from the second round, providing a final list of 22 criteria [gastro-intestinal system (n = 3), cardiovascular system (n = 4), respiratory system (n = 4), central nervous system (n = 6), infections (n = 1), endocrine system (n = 1), musculoskeletal system (n = 2), duplicates (n = 1)].

CONCLUSIONS: PROMPT is the first set of prescribing criteria developed for use in middle-aged adults. The utility of these criteria will be tested in future studies using prescribing datasets.

Potentially inappropriate medications used by the elderly: Prevalence and risk factors in Brazilian care homes

Abstract. Background: The use of potentially inappropriate medications (PIM) among the elderly is a serious public health problem because it is intrinsically linked to increased morbidity and mortality, causing high costs to public health systems. This study's objective was to verify the prevalence of and the factors associated with the use of PIMs by elderly Brazilians in institutional settings. Methods. We performed a transversal study, by consulting the case files of elderly people living in Long Term Care for the Elderly (LTC) in towns in the State of São Paulo, Brazil, as well as structured interviews with the nurses responsible for them.We identified PIMs using the list of recently updated Beers criteria developed by a group of specialists from the American Geriatrics Society (AGS), who reviewed the criteria based on studies with high scientific evidence levels. We defined the factors studied to evaluate the association with PIM use prior to the statistical analyses, which were the chi-square test and multiple logistic regression. Results: Among the elderly who used drugs daily, 82.6% were taking at least one PIM, with antipsychotics (26.5%) and analgesics (15.1%) being the most commonly used. Out of all the medications used, 32.4% were PIMs, with 29.7% of these being PIMs that the elderly should avoid independent of their condition, 1.1% being inappropriate medication for older adults with certain illnesses or syndromes, and 1.6% being medications that older adults should use with caution. In the multivariate analysis, the factors associated with PIM use were: polypharmacy (p = 0.0187), cerebrovascular disease (p = 0.0036), psychiatric disorders (p < 0.0001) and dependency (p = 0.0404). Conclusions: The results of this study showed a high prevalence of PIM use in institutionalized elderly Brazilian patients. and the associated factors were polypharmacy, psychiatric disorders, cerebrovascular diseases and dependency. © 2013 Lima et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

Reduction of inappropriate medications among older nursing-home residents: a nurse-led, pre/post-design, intervention study

Background: Medication-related problems are common in the growing population of older adults and inappropriate prescribing is a preventable risk factor. Explicit criteria such as the Beers criteria provide a valid instrument for describing the rate of inappropriate medication (IM) prescriptions among older adults. Objective: To reduce IM prescriptions based on explicit Beers criteria using a nurse-led intervention in a nursing-home (NH) setting. Study Design: The pre/post-design included IM assessment at study start (pre-intervention), a 4-month intervention period, IM assessment after the intervention period (post-intervention) and a further IM assessment at 1-year follow-up. Setting: 204-bed inpatient NH in Bern, Switzerland. Participants: NH residents aged ≥60 years. Intervention: The intervention included four key intervention elements: (i) adaptation of Beers criteria to the Swiss setting; (ii) IM identification; (iii) IM discontinuation; and (iv) staff training. Main Outcome Measure: IM prescription at study start, after the 4-month intervention period and at 1-year follow-up. Results: The mean±SD resident age was 80.3±8.8 years. Residents were prescribed a mean±SD 7.8±4.0 medications. The prescription rate of IMs decreased from 14.5% pre-intervention to 2.8% post-intervention (relative risk [RR] = 0.2; 95% CI 0.06, 0.5). The risk of IM prescription increased nonstatistically significantly in the 1-year follow-up period compared with post-intervention (RR = 1.6; 95% CI 0.5, 6.1). Conclusions: This intervention to reduce IM prescriptions based on explicit Beers criteria was feasible, easy to implement in an NH setting, and resulted in a substantial decrease in IMs. These results underscore the importance of involving nursing staff in the medication prescription process in a long-term care setting.

Data feedback and behavioural change intervention to improve primary care prescribing safety (EFIPPS) : multicentre, three arm, cluster-randomised controlled trial

Funding and trial registration: Scottish Government Chief Scientist Office grant CZH/3/17. ClinicalTrials.gov registration NCT01602705.

Polypharmacy and inappropriate medication use in patients with dementia: an underresearched problem

Multimorbidity and polypharmacy are increasingly prevalent across healthcare systems and settings as global demographic trends shift towards increased proportions of older people in populations. Numerous studies have demonstrated an association between polypharmacy and potentially inappropriate prescribing (PIP), and have reported high prevalence of PIP across settings of care in Europe and North America and, as a consequence, increased risk of adverse drug reactions, healthcare utilisation, morbidity and mortality. These studies have not focused specifically on people with dementia, despite the high risk of adverse drug reactions and PIP in this patient cohort. This narrative review considers the evidence currently available in the area, including studies examining prevalence of PIP in older people with dementia, how appropriateness of prescribing is assessed, the medications most commonly implicated, the clinical consequences, and research priorities to optimise prescribing for this vulnerable patient group. Although there has been considerable research effort to develop criteria to assess medication appropriateness in older people in recent years, the majority of tools do not focus on people with dementia. Of the limited number of tools available, most focus on the advanced stages of dementia in which life-expectancy is limited. The development of tools to assess medication appropriateness in people with mild-to-moderate dementia or across the full spectrum of disease severity represents an important gap in the research literature and is beginning to attract research interest, with recent studies considering the medication regimen as a whole, or misprescribing, overprescribing or underprescribing of certain medications/medication classes including anticholinergics, psychotropics, antibiotics and analgesics. Further work is required in development and validation of criteria to assess prescribing appropriateness in this vulnerable patient population, to determine prevalence of PIP in large cohorts of people with the full spectrum of dementia variants and severities and to examine the impact of PIP on health outcomes.

Psychotropics and challenging behaviour in people with an intellectual disability

Hilmer and Gnjidic drew attention to the pharmacological management of behavioural problems in nursing home residents, and called for a reduction in inappropriate prescribing and the development of alternative management strategies.1 We extend these concerns to another vulnerable population — people with intellectual disability. Historically, this population is one of the most medicated groups in modern society.

Pharmacotherapy optimization in older patients by a structured clinical pharmacist assessment and intervention

Introduction: Older individuals are particularly vulnerable to potentially inappropriate prescribing (PIP), drug related problems (DRPs) and adverse drug reactions (ADRs). A number of different interventions have been proposed to address these issues. However to-date there is a paucity of well-designed trials examining the impact of such interventions. Therefore the aims of this work were to: (i) establish a baseline PIP prevalence both nationally and internationally using the STOPP, Beers and PRISCUS criteria, (ii) identify the most comprehensive method of assessing PIP in older individuals, (iii) develop a structured pharmacist intervention supported by a computer decisions support system (CDSS) and (iv) examine the impact of this intervention on prescribing and incidence of ADRs. Results: This work identified high rates of PIP across all three healthcare settings in Ireland, 84.7% in the long term care, 70.7% in secondary care and 43.3% in primary care being reported. This work identified that for a comprehensive assessment of prescribing to be undertaken, an amalgamation of all three criteria should be deployed simultaneously. High prevalences of DRPs and PIP in older hospitalised individuals were identified. With 82.0% and 76.3% of patients reported to have at least one DRP or PIP instance respectively. The structured pharmacist intervention demonstrated a positive impact on prescribing, with a significant reduction MAI scores being reported. It also resulted in the intervention patients’ having a reduced risk of experiencing an ADR when compared to the control patients (absolute risk reduction of 6.8 (95% CI 1.5% - 12.3%)) and the number needed to treat = 15 (95% CI 8 - 68). However the intervention was found to have no significant effect on length of stay or mortality rate. Conclusion: This work shows that PIP is highly prevalent in older individuals across three healthcare settings in Ireland. This work also demonstrates that a structured pharmacist intervention support by a dedicated CDSS can significantly improve the appropriateness of prescribing and reduce the incidence of ADRs in older acutely ill hospitalised individuals.

Application of STOPP and START criteria: interrater reliability among pharmacists

BACKGROUND: Inappropriate prescribing is a well-documented problem in older people. The new screening tools, STOPP (Screening Tool of Older Peoples' Prescriptions) and START (Screening Tool to Alert doctors to Right Treatment) have been formulated to identify potentially inappropriate medications (PIMs) and potential errors of omissions (PEOs) in older patients. Consistent, reliable application of STOPP and START is essential for the screening tools to be used effectively by pharmacists. OBJECTIVE: To determine the interrater reliability among a group of clinical pharmacists in applying the STOPP and START criteria to elderly patients' records. METHODS: Ten pharmacists (5 hospital pharmacists, 5 community pharmacists) were given 20 patient profiles containing details including the patients' age and sex, current medications, current diagnoses, relevant medical histories, biochemical data, and estimated glomerular filtration rate. Each pharmacist applied the STOPP and START criteria to each patient record. The PIMs and PEOs identified by each pharmacist were compared with those of 2 academic pharmacists who were highly familiar with the application of STOPP and START. An interrater reliability analysis using the k statistic (chance corrected measure of agreement) was performed to determine consistency between pharmacists. RESULTS: The median ? coefficients for hospital pharmacists and community pharmacists compared with the academic pharmacists for STOPP were 0.89 and 0.88, respectively, while those for START were 0.91 and 0.90, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Interrater reliability of STOPP and START tools between pharmacists working in different sectors is good. Pharmacists working in both hospitals and in the community can use STOPP and START reliably during their everyday practice to identify PIMs and PEOs in older patients.

Interventions to improve the appropriate use of polypharmacy for older people

Background
Inappropriate polypharmacy is a particular concern in older people and is associated with negative health outcomes. Choosing the best interventions to improve appropriate polypharmacy is a priority, hence interest in appropriate polypharmacy, where many medicines may be used to achieve better clinical outcomes for patients, is growing.

Objectives
This review sought to determine which interventions, alone or in combination, are effective in improving the appropriate use of polypharmacy and reducing medication-related problems in older people.

Search methods
In November 2013, for this first update, a range of literature databases including MEDLINE and EMBASE were searched, and handsearching of reference lists was performed. Search terms included 'polypharmacy', 'medication appropriateness' and 'inappropriate prescribing'.

Selection criteria
A range of study designs were eligible. Eligible studies described interventions affecting prescribing aimed at improving appropriate polypharmacy in people 65 years of age and older in which a validated measure of appropriateness was used (e.g. Beers criteria, Medication Appropriateness Index (MAI)).

Data collection and analysis
Two review authors independently reviewed abstracts of eligible studies, extracted data and assessed risk of bias of included studies. Study-specific estimates were pooled, and a random-effects model was used to yield summary estimates of effect and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). The GRADE (Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation) approach was used to assess the overall quality of evidence for each pooled outcome.

Main results
Two studies were added to this review to bring the total number of included studies to 12. One intervention consisted of computerised decision support; 11 complex, multi-faceted pharmaceutical approaches to interventions were provided in a variety of settings. Interventions were delivered by healthcare professionals, such as prescribers and pharmacists. Appropriateness of prescribing was measured using validated tools, including the MAI score post intervention (eight studies), Beers criteria (four studies), STOPP criteria (two studies) and START criteria (one study). Interventions included in this review resulted in a reduction in inappropriate medication usage. Based on the GRADE approach, the overall quality of evidence for all pooled outcomes ranged from very low to low. A greater reduction in MAI scores between baseline and follow-up was seen in the intervention group when compared with the control group (four studies; mean difference -6.78, 95% CI -12.34 to -1.22). Postintervention pooled data showed a lower summated MAI score (five studies; mean difference -3.88, 95% CI -5.40 to -2.35) and fewer Beers drugs per participant (two studies; mean difference -0.1, 95% CI -0.28 to 0.09) in the intervention group compared with the control group. Evidence of the effects of interventions on hospital admissions (five studies) and of medication-related problems (six studies) was conflicting.

Authors' conclusions
It is unclear whether interventions to improve appropriate polypharmacy, such as pharmaceutical care, resulted in clinically significant improvement; however, they appear beneficial in terms of reducing inappropriate prescribing.

Intermediate Care: The Role of Medicines Management

Healthcare systems worldwide are facing an unprecedented demographic change as globally, the number of older people will triple to 2 billion by the year 2050. The resulting pressures on acute services have been instrumental in the development of intermediate care (IC) as a new healthcare model, which has its origins in the National Health Service in the UK. IC is an umbrella term for patient services that do not require the resources of a general hospital but are beyond the scope of a traditional primary care team. IC aims to promote timely discharge from hospital, prevent unnecessary hospital admissions and reduce the need for long-term residential care by optimizing functional independence. Various healthcare providers around the world have adopted similar models of care to manage changing healthcare needs. Polypharmacy, along with age-related changes, places older people at an increased risk of adverse drug events, including inappropriate prescribing, which has been shown to be prevalent in this population in other healthcare settings. Medicines management (the practice of maximizing health through optimal use of medicines) of older people has been discussed in the literature in a variety of settings; however, its place within IC is largely unknown. Despite IC being a multidisciplinary healthcare model, there is a lack of evidence to suggest that enhanced pharmaceutical involvement is core to the service provided within IC. This review article highlights the gap in the literature surrounding medicines management within IC and identifies potential solutions aimed at improving patient outcomes in this setting.