'I just thought that it was such an impossible thing': A qualitative study of barriers and facilitators to discontinuing long-term use of benzodiazepine receptor agonists using the Theoretical Domains Framework.

INTRODUCTION: Existing interventions to reduce long-term benzodiazepine receptor agonist (BZRA) use lack theoretical underpinning and detailed descriptions. This creates difficulties in understanding how interventions work and how to replicate them in practice. The Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF) can be used to identify behaviour change determinants to target during intervention development. OBJECTIVE: To explore barriers and facilitators to discontinuing BZRA use from the perspective of both current and previous long-term BZRA users. DESIGN/SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: Semistructured TDF-based interviews were conducted with community-based individuals with current or previous experience of long-term BZRA use. Data were recorded, transcribed and analysed using the framework method. RESULTS: Twenty-eight individuals were interviewed. Despite commonalities in perceived barriers/facilitators to discontinuing BZRA use within individual TDF domains, individual participants had different experiences of identified determinants of BZRA discontinuation. For example, both similarities and differences existed within and between each participant group in terms of knowledge of the appropriate duration of BZRA use ('Knowledge' domain) and experience of withdrawal symptoms ('Reinforcement' domain). Compared to previous users, current users typically anticipated more barriers to discontinuing BZRA use and fewer positive consequences of discontinuation. CONCLUSION: This study reports on barriers and facilitators to discontinuing BZRA use from the perspectives of current and previous long-term users. The findings highlight the challenging nature of BZRA discontinuation and a multitude of barriers that impact participants' behaviour regarding BZRA use. Future work will involve developing a theory-based intervention to support BZRA discontinuation in primary care. PATIENT CONTRIBUTION: The study included patients as participants.

Impact of changes in controlled drugs legislation on benzodiazepine receptor agonist prescribing in Ireland: a repeated cross-sectional study.

PURPOSE: To examine the impact of new controlled drugs legislation introduced in May 2017 on benzodiazepine receptor agonist (BZRA) prescribing in Ireland. METHODS: A repeated cross-sectional analysis was conducted using publically available monthly pharmacy claims data from the General Medical Services (GMS) database. The study population comprised all GMS-eligible individuals aged ≥ 16 years from January 2016 to September 2019. Monthly prevalence rates of individuals receiving BZRA prescriptions per 10,000 eligible population were calculated and trends examined over time. Segmented linear regression of prevalence rates was used to examine changes before and after introduction of the legislation stratified by gender and age groups. Regression coefficients (ß) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for monthly change were calculated. RESULTS: Pre-legislation (January 2016 to April 2017), there was a significant monthly decline in benzodiazepine prevalence rate (ß = - 1.18; 95% CI - 1.84, - 0.51; p < 0.001) but no significant change in Z-drug prescribing. Post-legislation (May 2017 to September 2019), increases in prevalence rates were observed for benzodiazepines (ß = 1.04; 95% CI 0.17, 1.92; p = 0.021) and Z-drugs (ß = 1.04; 95% CI 0.26, 1.83; p = 0.010). Post-legislation trends showed increases in BZRA prevalence rates among the youngest subgroup (16-44 years), with variable changes in the middle-aged subgroup (45-64 years) and no changes in the oldest subgroup (≥ 65 years). CONCLUSIONS: This study indicates that introduction of new legislation had limited impact on BZRA prescribing on the main public health scheme in Ireland. Interventions targeting specific population subgroups may be required to achieve sustained reductions in prescribing.

Benzodiazepine and Z-drug prescribing in Ireland: analysis of national prescribing trends from 2005 to 2015.

AIMS: The aim of this study was to examine prescribing trends for benzodiazepines and Z-drugs to General Medical Services (GMS) patients in Ireland. METHODS: A repeated cross-sectional analysis of the national pharmacy claims database was conducted for GMS patients aged ≥16 years from 2005 to 2015. Prescribing rates per 1000 eligible GMS population were calculated with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Negative binomial regression was used to determine longitudinal trends and compare prescribing rates across years, gender and age groups. Duration of supply and rates of concomitant benzodiazepine and Z-drug prescribing were determined. Age (16-44, 45-64, ≥65 years) and gender trends were investigated. RESULTS: Benzodiazepine prescribing rates decreased significantly from 225.92/1000 population (95% CI 224.94-226.89) in 2005 to 166.07/1000 population (95% CI 165.38-166.75) in 2015 (P < 0.0001). Z-drug prescribing rates increased significantly from 95.36/1000 population (95% CI 94.73-96.00) in 2005 to 109.11/1000 population (95% CI 108.56-109.67) in 2015 (P = 0.048). Approximately one-third of individuals dispensed either benzodiazepines or Z-drugs were receiving long-term prescriptions (>90 days). The proportion of those receiving >1 benzodiazepine and/or Z-drug concomitantly increased from 11.9% in 2005 to 15.3% in 2015. Benzodiazepine and Z-drug prescribing rates were highest for older women (≥65 years) throughout the study period. CONCLUSIONS: Benzodiazepine prescribing to the GMS population in Ireland decreased significantly from 2005 to 2015, and was coupled with significant increases in Z-drug prescribing. The study shows that benzodiazepine and Z-drug prescribing is common in this population, with high proportions of individuals receiving long-term prescriptions. Targeted interventions are needed to reduce potentially inappropriate long-term prescribing and use of these medications in Ireland.

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. This is the second update of this Cochrane Review. OBJECTIVES: 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: We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL and two trials registers up until 7 February 2018, together with handsearching of reference lists to identify additional studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised trials, non-randomised trials, controlled before-after studies, and interrupted time series. Eligible studies described interventions affecting prescribing aimed at improving appropriate polypharmacy in people aged 65 years and older, prescribed polypharmacy (four or more medicines), which used a validated tool to assess prescribing appropriateness. These tools can be classified as either implicit tools (judgement-based/based on expert professional judgement) or explicit tools (criterion-based, comprising lists of drugs to be avoided in older people). DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently reviewed abstracts of eligible studies, extracted data and assessed risk of bias of included studies. We pooled study-specific estimates, and used a random-effects model to yield summary estimates of effect and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We assessed the overall certainty of evidence for each outcome using the GRADE approach. MAIN RESULTS: We identified 32 studies, 20 from this update. Included studies consisted of 18 randomised trials, 10 cluster randomised trials (one of which was a stepped-wedge design), two non-randomised trials and two controlled before-after studies. One intervention consisted of computerised decision support (CDS); and 31 were complex, multi-faceted pharmaceutical-care based approaches (i.e. the responsible provision of medicines to improve patient's outcomes), one of which incorporated a CDS component as part of their multi-faceted intervention. Interventions were provided in a variety of settings. Interventions were delivered by healthcare professionals such as general physicians, pharmacists and geriatricians, and all were conducted in high-income countries. Assessments using the Cochrane 'Risk of bias' tool, found that there was a high and/or unclear risk of bias across a number of domains. Based on the GRADE approach, the overall certainty of evidence for each pooled outcome ranged from low to very low.It is uncertain whether pharmaceutical care improves medication appropriateness (as measured by an implicit tool), mean difference (MD) -4.76, 95% CI -9.20 to -0.33; 5 studies, N = 517; very low-certainty evidence). It is uncertain whether pharmaceutical care reduces the number of potentially inappropriate medications (PIMs), (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.22, 95% CI -0.38 to -0.05; 7 studies; N = 1832; very low-certainty evidence). It is uncertain whether pharmaceutical care reduces the proportion of patients with one or more PIMs, (risk ratio (RR) 0.79, 95% CI 0.61 to 1.02; 11 studies; N = 3079; very low-certainty evidence). Pharmaceutical care may slightly reduce the number of potential prescribing omissions (PPOs) (SMD -0.81, 95% CI -0.98 to -0.64; 2 studies; N = 569; low-certainty evidence), however it must be noted that this effect estimate is based on only two studies, which had serious limitations in terms of risk bias. Likewise, it is uncertain whether pharmaceutical care reduces the proportion of patients with one or more PPOs (RR 0.40, 95% CI 0.18 to 0.85; 5 studies; N = 1310; very low-certainty evidence). Pharmaceutical care may make little or no difference in hospital admissions (data not pooled; 12 studies; N = 4052; low-certainty evidence). Pharmaceutical care may make little or no difference in quality of life (data not pooled; 12 studies; N = 3211; low-certainty evidence). Medication-related problems were reported in eight studies (N = 10,087) using different terms (e.g. adverse drug reactions, drug-drug interactions). No consistent intervention effect on medication-related problems was noted across studies. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: It is unclear whether interventions to improve appropriate polypharmacy, such as reviews of patients' prescriptions, resulted in clinically significant improvement; however, they may be slightly beneficial in terms of reducing potential prescribing omissions (PPOs); but this effect estimate is based on only two studies, which had serious limitations in terms of risk bias.

Improving adherence to multiple medications in older people in primary care: Selecting intervention components to address patient-reported barriers and facilitators.

BACKGROUND: Medication adherence is vital to ensuring optimal patient outcomes, particularly amongst multimorbid older people prescribed multiple medications. Interventions targeting adherence often lack a theoretical underpinning and this may impact on effectiveness. The theoretical domains framework (TDF) of behaviour can aid intervention development by systematically identifying key determinants of medication adherence. OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to (i) identify determinants (barriers, facilitators) of adherence to multiple medications from older people's perspectives; (ii) identify key domains to target for behaviour change; and (iii) map key domains to intervention components [behaviour change techniques (BCTs)] that could be delivered in an intervention by community pharmacists. METHOD: Focus groups were conducted with older people (>65 years) receiving ≥4 medications. Questions explored the 12 domains of the TDF (eg "Knowledge," "Emotion"). Data were analysed using the framework method and content analysis. Identification of key domains and mapping to intervention components (BCTs) followed established methods. RESULTS: Seven focus groups were convened (50 participants). A wide range of determinants were identified as barriers (eg forgetfulness, prioritization of medications) and facilitators (eg social support, personalized routines) of adherence to multiple medications. Eight domains were identified as key targets for behaviour change (eg "Social influences," "Memory, attention and decision processes," "Motivation and goals") and mapped to 11 intervention components (BCTs) to include in an intervention [eg "Social support or encouragement (general)," "Self-monitoring of the behaviour," "Goal-setting (behaviour)"]. CONCLUSION: This study used a theoretical underpinning to identify potential intervention components (BCTs). Future work will incorporate the selected BCTs into an intervention that will undergo feasibility testing in community pharmacies.

Development of an intervention to improve appropriate polypharmacy in older people in primary care using a theory-based method.

BACKGROUND: It is advocated that interventions to improve clinical practice should be developed using a systematic approach and intervention development methods should be reported. However, previous interventions aimed at ensuring that older people receive appropriate polypharmacy have lacked details on their development. This study formed part of a multiphase research project which aimed to develop an intervention to improve appropriate polypharmacy in older people in primary care. METHODS: The target behaviours for the intervention were prescribing and dispensing of appropriate polypharmacy to older patients by general practitioners (GPs) and community pharmacists. Intervention development followed a systematic approach, including previous mapping of behaviour change techniques (BCTs) to key domains from the Theoretical Domains Framework that were perceived by GPs and pharmacists to influence the target behaviours. Draft interventions were developed to operationalise selected BCTs through team discussion. Selection of an intervention for feasibility testing was guided by a subset of the APEASE (Affordability, Practicability, Effectiveness/cost-effectiveness, Acceptability, Side-effects/safety, Equity) criteria. RESULTS: Three draft interventions comprising selected BCTs were developed, targeting patients, pharmacists and GPs, respectively. Following assessment of each intervention using a subset of the APEASE criteria (affordability, practicability, acceptability), the GP-targeted intervention was selected for feasibility testing. This intervention will involve a demonstration of the behaviour and will be delivered as an online video. The video demonstrating how GPs can prescribe appropriate polypharmacy during a typical consultation with an older patient will also demonstrate salience of consequences (feedback emphasising the positive outcomes of performing the behaviour). Action plans and prompts/cues will be used as complementary intervention components. The intervention is designed to facilitate the prescribing of appropriate polypharmacy in routine practice. CONCLUSION: A GP-targeted intervention to improve appropriate polypharmacy in older people has been developed using a systematic approach. Intervention content has been specified using an established taxonomy of BCTs and selected to maximise feasibility. The results of a future feasibility study will help to determine if the theory-based intervention requires further refinement before progressing to a larger scale randomised evaluation.

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.

Writing a manuscript for publication in a peer-reviewed scientific journal: Guidance from the European Society of Clinical Pharmacy.

Publishing in reputable peer-reviewed journals is an integral step of the clinical pharmacy research process, allowing for knowledge transfer and advancement in clinical pharmacy practice. Writing a manuscript for publication in a journal requires several careful considerations to ensure that research findings are communicated to the satisfaction of editors and reviewers, and effectively to the readers. This commentary provides a summary of the main points to consider, outlining how to: (1) select a suitable journal, (2) tailor the manuscript for the journal readership, (3) organise the content of the manuscript in line with the journal's guidelines, and (4) manage feedback from the peer review process. This commentary reviews the steps of the writing process, identifies common pitfalls, and proposes ways to overcome them. It aims to assist both novice and established researchers in the field of clinical pharmacy to enhance the quality of writing in a research paper to maximise impact.

Scope, content and quality of clinical pharmacy practice guidelines: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Guidelines for pharmacy practitioners regarding various clinical pharmacy activities have been published in a number of countries. There is a need to review the guidelines and identify the scope of activities covered as a prelude to developing internationally acceptable common guidelines. AIM: To review the scope of clinical pharmacy guidelines and assess the extent to which these guidelines conform to quality standards as per the AGREE II instrument. METHOD: Medline, Embase, Guideline Central, International Pharmaceutical Abstracts, Google Scholar and Google (for grey literature) were searched for the period 2010 to January 2023. Guidelines which focused on any health care setting and any clinical pharmacy activity were included. Data were extracted and quality assessed independently by two reviewers using the English version of the AGREE II instrument. RESULTS: Thirty-eight guidelines were included, mostly originating from Australia (n = 10), Ireland (n = 8), UK (n = 7) and USA (n = 5). Areas covered included medication reconciliation, medicines optimisation, medication management and transition of care. As per the AGREE II assessment, the highest score was obtained for the scope and purpose domain and the lowest score for rigour of development, mainly due to non-consideration of literature/evidence to inform guideline development. CONCLUSION: Clinical pharmacy guidelines development processes need to focus on all quality domains and should take a systematic approach to guideline development. Guidelines need to further emphasise person-centred care and clinical communication. There is a scope to harmonise the guidelines internationally considering the diverse practices, standards and legislations across different geographies.

How to write a successful grant application: guidance provided by the European Society of Clinical Pharmacy.

Considering a rejection rate of 80-90%, the preparation of a research grant is often considered a daunting task since it is resource intensive and there is no guarantee of success, even for seasoned researchers. This commentary provides a summary of the key points a researcher needs to consider when writing a research grant proposal, outlining: (1) how to conceptualise the research idea; (2) how to find the right funding call; (3) the importance of planning; (4) how to write; (5) what to write, and (6) key questions for reflection during preparation. It attempts to explain the difficulties associated with finding calls in clinical pharmacy and advanced pharmacy practice, and how to overcome them. The commentary aims to assist all pharmacy practice and health services research colleagues new to the grant application process, as well as experienced researchers striving to improve their grant review scores. The guidance in this paper is part of ESCP's commitment to stimulate "innovative and high-quality research in all areas of clinical pharmacy".

Potentially inappropriate prescribing in older adults with cancer receiving specialist palliative care: a retrospective observational study.

BACKGROUND: Older adults (≥ 65 years) with cancer receiving palliative care often have other health conditions requiring multiple medications. AIM: To describe and assess the appropriateness of prescribing for older adults with cancer in the last seven days of life in an inpatient palliative care setting. METHOD: Retrospective observational study of medical records for 180 patients (60.6% male; median age: 74 years; range 65-94 years) over a two-year period. Medication appropriateness was assessed using: STOPPFrail, OncPal deprescribing guideline and criteria for identifying Potentially Inappropriate Prescribing in older adults with Cancer receiving Palliative Care (PIP-CPC). RESULTS: 94.5% of patients had at least one other health condition (median 3, IQR 2-5). The median number of medications increased from five (IQR 3-7) seven days before death, to 11 medications on the day of death (IQR 9-15). The prevalence of PIP varied depending on the tool used: STOPPFrail (version 1: 17.2%, version 2: 19.4%), OncPal (12.8%), PIP-CPC (30%). However, the retrospective nature of the study limited the applicability of the tools. Increasing number of medications had a statistically significant effect on risk of PIP across all tools (STOPPFrail (version 1: 1.29 (1.13-1.37), version 2: 1.30 (1.16-1.48)); OncPal 1.13 (1.01-1.27); PIP-CPC 0.70 (0.61-0.82)). CONCLUSION: This study found that the number of medications prescribed to older adults with cancer increased as time to death approached, and the prevalence of PIP varied with the application of different tools. The study also highlights the difficulties of examining PIP in this patient cohort.

Applying the intervention Complexity Assessment Tool to brief interventions targeting long-term benzodiazepine receptor agonist use in primary care: Lessons learned.

BACKGROUND: Benzodiazepine receptor agonists (BZRAs) are often prescribed for long-term use. However, guidelines recommend limiting prescriptions to short-term use (< 4 weeks) to reduce the risk of adverse effects and dependence. A recent systematic review reported that brief interventions targeting long-term BZRA use in primary care (e.g., short consultations, written letters to patients) were effective in helping patients to discontinue BZRA medication. However, the complexity of these interventions has not been examined in detail. This study aimed to apply the intervention Complexity Assessment Tool for Systematic Reviews (iCAT_SR) to brief interventions targeting long-term BZRA use.  METHODS: Two reviewers independently assessed the interventions using the six core iCAT_SR dimensions: organisational level/ category targeted, behaviour targeted, number of intervention components, degree of tailoring, skill level required by those delivering and receiving the intervention. The four optional iCAT_SR dimensions were applied where possible. A scoring system was using to calculate a complexity score for each intervention. Pearson's correlations were used to assess the relationship between intervention complexity and effect size, as well as the relationship between intervention complexity and number of component behaviour change techniques (BCTs). Inter-rater reliability was calculated using Cohen's Kappa coefficient. RESULTS: Four of the six core iCAT_SR dimensions were applied to the interventions with high inter-rater reliability (Cohen's Kappa = 0.916). Application of the four optional dimensions was prevented by a lack of detail in study reports. Intervention complexity scores ranged from 8 to 11 (median: 11). There was no relationship detected between intervention complexity and either intervention effect size or number of component BCTs. CONCLUSIONS: This study adds to the literature on worked examples of the practical application of the iCAT_SR. The findings highlight how more detailed reporting of interventions is needed in order to optimise the application of iCAT_SR and its potential to differentiate between interventions across the full range of complexity dimensions. Further work is needed to establish the validity of applying a scoring system to iCAT_SR assessments.

A systematic scoping review of interventions to optimise medication prescribing and adherence in older adults with cancer.

BACKGROUND: Older adults with cancer often require multiple medications (polypharmacy) comprising cancer-specific treatments, supportive care medications (e.g. analgesics), and medications for pre-existing health conditions. Increasing numbers of medications may increase risks of potentially inappropriate prescribing and non-adherence. OBJECTIVE: To provide an overview of evaluations of interventions aimed at optimising medication prescribing and/or adherence in older adults with cancer. METHODS: A systematic scoping review was undertaken. Four databases (PubMed, EMBASE, CINAHL, PsycINFO) were searched using relevant search terms (e.g. cancer, older adults). Eligible studies evaluated interventions seeking to improve medication prescribing and/or adherence in older adults (≥65 years) with cancer using a comparative evaluation. All outcomes for studies that met inclusion criteria were included in the review. Extracted data were collated using tables and accompanying narrative descriptive summaries. The review was reported using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR) guidelines. RESULTS: Nine studies met inclusion criteria comprising five randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and four before-and-after study designs. Studies were primarily conducted in oncology clinics, ranging from single study sites to 109 oncology clinics. Sample sizes ranged between 33 and 4844 patients. Interventions most commonly involved patient education (n = 6) delivered by pharmacists or nurses. Three studies reported on prescribing-related outcomes and seven studies reported on adherence-related outcomes, using different terminology and assessment methods. Prescribing-related outcomes focused on medication appropriateness (using Beers criteria) and drug-related problems including drug interactions. Adherence-related outcomes included assessments of self-reported medication adherence and calculation of patients' medication possession ratio. CONCLUSIONS: This scoping review highlights a lack of robust evaluations of interventions aimed at optimising medication prescribing and adherence in older adults with cancer. Future research should improve rigour during intervention development, evaluation and reporting in order to generate findings that could inform future practice.

'It stayed there, front and centre': perspectives on community pharmacy's contribution to front-line healthcare services during the COVID-19 pandemic in Northern Ireland.

OBJECTIVES: To explore community pharmacists and key stakeholders' perspectives and reflections on the community pharmacy workforce's preparedness for, and response to, COVID-19, including lessons for future public health crises. DESIGN, SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: Qualitative study using semistructured interviews (via telephone or online videoconferencing platform), with community pharmacists and a range of key stakeholders (representing other health professions, professional/governing organisations concerned with community pharmacy and patient advocacy groups) from across Northern Ireland. Data were analysed using thematic analysis and constant comparison. RESULTS: Thirty interviews were conducted with community pharmacists (n=15) and key stakeholders (n=15). Four themes were identified: (1) adaptation and adjustment (reflecting how community responded quickly to the need to maintain services and adjusted and adapted services accordingly); (2) the primary point of contact (the continuing accessibility of community pharmacy when other services were not available and role as a communication hub, particularly in relation to information for patients and maintaining contact with other healthcare professionals); (3) lessons learnt (the flexibility of community pharmacy, the lack of infrastructure, especially in relation to information technology, and the need to build on the pandemic experience to develop practice); and (4) planning for the future (better infrastructure which reinforced concerns about poor technology, coordination of primary care services and preparing for the next public health crisis). There was a general view that community pharmacy needed to build on what had been learnt to advance the role of the profession. CONCLUSIONS: The strengths of community pharmacy and its contribution to healthcare services in the COVID-19 pandemic were noted by community pharmacists and acknowledged by key stakeholders. The findings from this study should inform the policy debate on community pharmacy and its contribution to the public health agenda.

An external pilot cluster randomised controlled trial of a theory-based intervention to improve appropriate polypharmacy in older people in primary care (PolyPrime).

BACKGROUND: For older populations with multimorbidity, polypharmacy (use of multiple medications) is a standard practice. PolyPrime is a theory-based intervention developed to improve appropriate polypharmacy in older people in primary care. This pilot study aims to assess the feasibility of the PolyPrime intervention in primary care in Northern Ireland (NI) and the Republic of Ireland (ROI). METHODS: This external pilot cluster randomised controlled trial (cRCT) aimed to recruit 12 general practitioner (GP) practices (six in NI; six in the ROI counties that border NI) and ten older patients receiving polypharmacy (≥ 4 medications) per GP practice (n = 120). Practices allocated to the intervention arm watched an online video and scheduled medication reviews with patients on two occasions. We assessed the feasibility of collecting GP record (medication appropriateness, health service use) and patient self-reported data [health-related quality of life (HRQoL), health service use)] at baseline, 6 and 9 months. HRQoL was measured using the EuroQol-5 dimension-5 level questionnaire (EQ-5D-5L) and medication-related burden quality-of-life (MRB-QoL) tool. An embedded process evaluation and health economics analysis were also undertaken. Pre-specified progression criteria were used to determine whether to proceed to a definitive cRCT. RESULTS: Twelve GP practices were recruited and randomised. Three GP practices withdrew from the study due to COVID-related factors. Sixty-eight patients were recruited, with 47 (69.1%) being retained until the end of the study. GP record data were available for 47 patients for medication appropriateness analysis at 9 months. EQ-5D-5L and MRB-QoL data were available for 46 and 41 patients, respectively, at 9 months. GP record and patient self-reported health service use data were available for 47 patients at 9 months. Health service use was comparable in terms of overall cost estimated from GP record versus patient self-reported data. The intervention was successfully delivered as intended; it was acceptable to GPs, practice staff, and patients; and potential mechanisms of action have been identified. All five progression criteria were met (two 'Go', three 'Amend'). CONCLUSION: Despite challenges faced during the COVID-19 pandemic, this study has demonstrated that it may be feasible to conduct an intervention to improve appropriate polypharmacy in older people in primary care across two healthcare jurisdictions. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN, ISRCTN41009897 . Registered 19 November 2019. CLINICALTRIALS: gov, NCT04181879 . Registered 02 December 2019.

On the frontline against COVID-19: Community pharmacists' contribution during a public health crisis.

The global spread of COVID-19 is placing unprecedented demands on healthcare services. In this time of crisis, innovative and adaptive methods of practising will be required across all health professions. In order to maximise the use of current available resources, it is vital that existing services are comprehensively reviewed and full use is made of any unrealised potential among healthcare providers. Community pharmacy is one of a number of health professions that has a key role to play in responding to the current pandemic. As the scope of community pharmacy practice varies considerably across countries, it is important to examine ways in which the profession can assist with the public health response to COVID-19 and maintaining the continuity of healthcare services. This article seeks to highlight roles and activities that community pharmacists can undertake to help in relieving pressure on other areas of the health service, such as general practice. This information could help to inform future decisions about the restructuring of existing health services by governments, public health bodies and policy makers in response to public health crises such as COVID-19.

Development of criteria for identifying potentially inappropriate prescribing in older adults with cancer receiving palliative care (PIP-CPC).

OBJECTIVES: To develop criteria for identifying potentially inappropriate prescribing of medications for symptomatic relief in older adults (≥65 years) with cancer who are receiving palliative care and have an estimated life expectancy of <1 year. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A two-round Delphi exercise was conducted using web-based questionnaires. A panel of 18 expert stakeholders with expertise in palliative care, oncology and/or geriatric medicine across Ireland and the United Kingdom rated their level of agreement with each statement using a 5-point Likert scale and had the option of adding free-text comments throughout the questionnaire. A priori decision rules were used to accept or reject criteria. RESULTS: Twenty-eight criteria were presented in Round 1. Group consensus was achieved for 15 criteria which were included in the final set of criteria. Following a review of the panel's ratings and additional comments for the remaining 13 criteria, four criteria were removed from Round 2. Group consensus was achieved for all nine criteria included in Round 2. The final set comprised 24 criteria relating to: anorexia-cachexia (n = 1); anxiety (n = 2); constipation (n = 5); delirium (n = 1); depression (n = 3); diarrhoea (n = 1); dyspnoea/breathlessness (n = 1); fatigue (n = 2); insomnia (n = 2); nausea and vomiting (n = 2); pain (n = 3); duplicate drug classes (n = 1). CONCLUSION: A consensus-agreed set of prescribing criteria has been developed for identifying potentially inappropriate prescribing of medications for symptomatic relief in older adults with cancer who are receiving palliative care and have an estimated life expectancy of less than one year. Future studies should examine the application and validity of these criteria.

Prescribing practices, patterns, and potential harms in patients receiving palliative care: A systematic scoping review.

Background: Patients receiving palliative care often have existing comorbidities necessitating the prescribing of multiple medications. To maximize quality of life in this patient cohort, it is important to tailor prescribing of medication for preventing and treating existing illnesses and those for controlling symptoms, such as pain, according to individual specific needs. Objectives: To provide an overview of peer-reviewed observational research on prescribing practices, patterns, and potential harms in patients receiving palliative care. Methods: A systematic scoping review was conducted using four electronic databases (PubMed, EMBASE, CINAHL, Web of Science). Each database was searched from inception to May 2020. Search terms included 'palliative care,' 'end of life,' and 'prescribing.' Eligible studies had to examine prescribing for adults (≥18 years) receiving palliative care in any setting as a study aim or outcome. Studies focusing on single medication types (e.g., opioids), medication classes (e.g., chemotherapy), or clinical indications (e.g., pain) were excluded. The review followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines for scoping reviews, and the findings were described using narrative synthesis. Results: Following deduplication, 16,565 unique citations were reviewed, and 56 studies met inclusion criteria. The average number of prescribed medications per patient ranged from 3 to 23. Typically, prescribing changes involved decreases in preventative medications and increases in symptom-specific medications closer to the time of death. Twenty-one studies assessed the appropriateness of prescribing using various tools. The prevalence of patients with ≥1 potentially inappropriate prescription ranged from 15 to 92%. Three studies reported on adverse drug events. Conclusions: This scoping review provides a broad overview of existing research and shows that many patients receiving palliative care receive multiple medications closer to the time of death. Future research should focus in greater detail on prescribing appropriateness using tools specifically developed to guide prescribing in palliative care and the potential for harm.

Protocol for a process evaluation of an external pilot cluster randomised controlled trial of a theory-based intervention to improve appropriate polypharmacy in older people in primary care: the PolyPrime study.

BACKGROUND: The PolyPrime intervention is a theory-based intervention aimed at improving appropriate polypharmacy in older people (aged ≥65 years) in primary care. The intervention consists of an online video which demonstrates how general practitioners (GPs) can prescribe appropriate polypharmacy during a consultation with an older patient and a patient recall process, whereby patients are invited to scheduled medication review consultations with GPs. The aim of the process evaluation is to further examine the implementation of the PolyPrime intervention in primary care. This will involve investigating whether the PolyPrime intervention can be delivered as intended across two healthcare systems, how acceptable the intervention is to GPs, practice staff and patients, and to identify the intervention's likely mechanisms of action. METHODS: The PolyPrime study is an external pilot cluster randomised controlled trial (cRCT) which aims to recruit 12 GP practices across Northern Ireland [NI] (n=6) and the six counties in the Republic of Ireland (ROI) that border NI (n=6). Practices have been randomised to intervention or usual care. An embedded process evaluation will assess intervention fidelity (i.e. was the intervention delivered as intended), acceptability of the intervention to GPs, practice staff and patients and potential mechanisms of action (i.e. what components of the intervention were perceived to be effective). Quantitative data will be collected from data collection forms completed by GPs and practice staff and a feedback questionnaire completed by patients from intervention arm practices, which will be analysed using descriptive statistics. Qualitative data will be collected through semi-structured interviews with GPs and practice staff and audio-recordings of medication review appointments from the intervention arm practices which will be transcribed and analysed using the framework method. Quantitative and qualitative data will be triangulated to provide an overall assessment of intervention fidelity, intervention acceptability, and mechanisms of action. DISCUSSION: This process evaluation will add to feasibility data from the pilot cRCT by providing evidence on the fidelity of implementing the intervention package across two healthcare systems, the acceptability of the intervention and potential mechanisms of action. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov ISRCTN41009897 . Registered on 19 November 2019. ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04181879 . Registered 02 December 2019.

An external pilot cluster randomised controlled trial of a theory-based intervention to improve appropriate polypharmacy in older people in primary care (PolyPrime): study protocol.

BACKGROUND: The use of multiple medications (polypharmacy) is a concern in older people (≥65 years) and is associated with negative health outcomes. For older populations with multimorbidity, polypharmacy is the reality and the key challenge is ensuring appropriate polypharmacy (as opposed to inappropriate polypharmacy). This external pilot cluster randomised controlled trial (cRCT) aims to further test a theory-based intervention to improve appropriate polypharmacy in older people in primary care in two jurisdictions, Northern Ireland (NI) and the Republic of Ireland (ROI). METHODS: Twelve GP practices across NI (n=6) and the six counties in the ROI that border NI will be randomised to either the intervention or usual care group. Members of the research team have developed an intervention to improve appropriate polypharmacy in older people in primary care using the Theoretical Domains Framework of behaviour change. The intervention consists of two components: (1) an online video which demonstrates how a GP may prescribe appropriate polypharmacy during a consultation with an older patient and (2) a patient recall process, whereby patients are invited to scheduled medication review consultations with GPs. Ten older patients receiving polypharmacy (≥4 medications) will be recruited per GP practice (n=120). GP practices allocated to the intervention arm will be asked to watch the online video and schedule medication reviews with patients on two occasions; an initial and a 6-month follow-up appointment. GP practices allocated to the control arm will continue to provide usual care to patients. The study will assess the feasibility of recruitment, retention and study procedures including collecting data on medication appropriateness (from GP records), quality of life and health service use (i.e. hospitalisations). An embedded process evaluation will assess intervention fidelity (i.e. was the intervention delivered as intended), acceptability of the intervention and potential mechanisms of action. DISCUSSION: This pilot cRCT will provide evidence of the feasibility of a range of study parameters such as recruitment and retention, data collection procedures and the acceptability of the intervention. Pre-specified progression criteria will also be used to determine whether or not to proceed to a definitive cRCT. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN, ISRCTN41009897 . Registered 19 November 2019. ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04181879 . Registered 02 December 2019.