Clinical competence, communication ability and adherence to choosing wisely recommendations for lipid reducing drug use in older adults.

BACKGROUND: Although lipid-lowering drugs are not recommended for primary prevention in patients 75+, prevalence of use is high and there is unexplained variation in prescribing between physicians. The objective of this study was to determine if physician communication ability and clinical competence are associated with prescribing lipid-lowering drugs for primary and secondary prevention. METHODS: We used a cohort of 4,501 international medical graduates, 161,214 U.S. Medicare patients with hyperlipidemia (primary prevention) and 49,780 patients with a history of cardiovascular disease (secondary prevention) not treated with lipid-lowering therapy who were seen by study physicians in ambulatory care. Clinical competence and communication ability were measured by the ECFMG clinical assessment examination. Physician citizenship, age, gender, specialty and patient characteristics were also measured. The outcome was an incident prescription of lipid-lowering drug, evaluated using multivariable GEE logistic regression models for primary and secondary prevention for patients 75+ and 65-74. RESULTS: Patients 75+ were less likely than those 65-74 to receive lipid-lowering drugs for primary (OR 0.62, 95% CI 0.59-0.66) and secondary (OR 0.70, 95% CI 0.63-0.78) prevention. For every 20% increase in clinical competence score, the odds of prescribing therapy for primary prevention to patients 75+ increased by 24% (95% CI 1.02-1.5). Communication ability had the opposite effect, reducing the odds of prescribing for primary prevention by 11% per 20% score increase (95% CI 0.8-0.99) for both age groups. Physicians who were citizens of countries with higher proportions of Hispanic (South/Central America) or Asian (Asia/Oceania) people were more likely to prescribe treatment for primary prevention, and internal medicine specialists were more likely to treat for secondary prevention than primary care physicians. CONCLUSION: Clinical competence, communication ability and physician citizenship are associated with lipid-lowering drug prescribing for primary prevention in patients aged 75+.

Effect of a Pharmacist-Led Educational Intervention on Inappropriate Medication Prescriptions in Older Adults: The D-PRESCRIBE Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: High rates of inappropriate prescribing persist among older adults in many outpatient settings, increasing the risk of adverse drug events and drug-related hospitalizations. Objective: To compare the effectiveness of a consumer-targeted, pharmacist-led educational intervention vs usual care on discontinuation of inappropriate medication among community-dwelling older adults. Design, Setting, and Participants: A cluster randomized trial (D-PRESCRIBE [Developing Pharmacist-Led Research to Educate and Sensitize Community Residents to the Inappropriate Prescriptions Burden in the Elderly]) that recruited community pharmacies in Quebec, Canada, from February 2014 to September 2017, with follow-up until February 2018, and randomly allocated them to intervention or control groups. Patients included were adults aged 65 years and older who were prescribed 1 of 4 Beers Criteria medications (sedative-hypnotics, first-generation antihistamines, glyburide, or nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs), recruited from 69 community pharmacies. Patients were screened and enrolled before randomization. Interventions: Pharmacists in the intervention group were encouraged to send patients an educational deprescribing brochure in parallel to sending their physicians an evidence-based pharmaceutical opinion to recommend deprescribing. The pharmacists in the control group provided usual care. Randomization occurred at the pharmacy level, with 34 pharmacies randomized to the intervention group (248 patients) and 35 to the control group (241 patients). Patients, physicians, pharmacists, and evaluators were blinded to outcome assessment. Main Outcomes and Measures: Discontinuation of prescriptions for inappropriate medication at 6 months, ascertained by pharmacy medication renewal profiles. Results: Among 489 patients (mean age, 75 years; 66% women), 437 (89%) completed the trial (219 [88%] in the intervention group vs 218 [91%] in the control group). At 6 months, 106 of 248 patients (43%) in the intervention group no longer filled prescriptions for inappropriate medication compared with 29 of 241 (12%) in the control group (risk difference, 31% [95% CI, 23% to 38%]). In the intervention vs control group, discontinuation of inappropriate medication occurred among 63 of 146 sedative-hypnotic drug users (43.2%) vs 14 of 155 (9.0%), respectively (risk difference, 34% [95% CI, 25% to 43%]); 19 of 62 glyburide users (30.6%) vs 8 of 58 (13.8%), respectively (risk difference, 17% [95% CI, 2% to 31%]); and 19 of 33 nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug users (57.6%) vs 5 of 23 (21.7%), respectively (risk difference, 35% [95% CI, 10% to 55%]) (P for interaction = .09). Analysis of the antihistamine drug class was not possible because of the small sample size (n = 12). No adverse events requiring hospitalization were reported, although 29 of 77 patients (38%) who attempted to taper sedative-hypnotics reported withdrawal symptoms. Conclusions and Relevance: Among older adults in Quebec, a pharmacist-led educational intervention compared with usual care resulted in greater discontinuation of prescriptions for inappropriate medication after 6 months. The generalizability of these findings to other settings requires further research. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02053194.

Educating medical trainees on medication reconciliation: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Effective medication reconciliation is critical in reducing the risk of preventable adverse drug events. Medical trainees are often responsible for medication reconciliation on admission, transfer and discharge of the most vulnerable patients; therefore, it is important that trainees are educated on this aspect of quality care. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review using MEDLINE and EMBASE databases to identify education initiatives targeted at improving trainee skill and knowledge in carrying out medication reconciliation. Studies published in English or French between July 1980 and July 2013, where the primary focus of the article was the role of medical trainees in conducting medication reconciliation, and where trainee-specific data was reported, were included. Included articles must have reported trainee-specific data. Given the anticipated heterogeneity and array of outcomes, we were unable to employ a specific tool in assessing the risk of bias across studies. RESULTS: Seven studies met pre-specified eligibility criteria, indicating the lack of published education initiatives targeted towards improving trainee knowledge and experience. Four described an education intervention targeted towards students completing internal medicine clerkship, while the remaining 3 were implemented among residents. Although no two interventions were the same, 5 out of 7 included an experiential component. CONCLUSIONS: Varying success was achieved with medication reconciliation education interventions. While some noted improved competence and/or confidence amongst trainees, namely undergraduate medical students, others noted little effect resulting from the intervention.

Medication reconciliation at admission and discharge: a time and motion study.

BACKGROUND: Medication reconciliation at admission, transfer and discharge has been designated as a required hospital practice to reduce adverse drug events. However, implementation challenges have resulted in poor hospital adherence. The aim of this study was to assess the processes required to carry out medication reconciliation: the health professionals involved, the tasks and time devoted to medication reconciliation in general hospital settings. METHODS: A time-and-motion study design was used. Using a systematic sample of patients admitted and discharged from geriatric, medical and surgical units in two academic centers, health professionals involved in medication reconciliation were observed and timed. Descriptive statistics were used to summarize the number of professionals involved, tasks performed, and mean time devoted. RESULTS: Up to 3 professionals from 2 disciplines (medicine and pharmacy) were involved in the medication reconciliation process. Geriatric reconciliations took the most time to complete at admission (mean: 92.2 minutes (SD = 44.3)) and discharge (mean: 29.0 minutes (SD = 23.8)), followed by internal medicine at admission (mean: 46.2 minutes (SD = 21.1)) and 19.4 (SD = 11.7) minutes at discharge) and general surgery minutes at discharge (mean: 9.9 minutes (SD = 18.2)). Considerable differences in order, type and number of tasks performed were noted between and within units. Tasks independent of direct patient interaction took more than twice the time required to complete than tasks requiring patient interaction. CONCLUSION: Lack of coordination, specialized training and agreement on the roles and responsibilities of professionals are among the most probable reasons for work-flow inefficiencies, possibly variability in quality, and time required for the current medication reconciliation process. A better understanding of the admission processes in general surgery is required. Standardization and use of electronic tools could improve efficiency and hospital adherence.

'Improving smart medication management': an online expert discussion.

Medication safety continues to be a problem inside and outside the hospital, partly because new smart technologies can cause new drug-related challenges to prescribers and patients. Better integrated digital and information technology (IT) systems, improved education on prescribing for prescribers and greater patient-centred care that empowers patients to take control of their medications are all vital to safer and more effective prescribing. In July 2021, a roundtable discussion was held as a spin-off meeting of the International Forum on Quality and Safety in Health Care Europe 2021 to discuss challenges and future direction in smart medication management. This manuscript summarises the discussion focusing on the aspects of digital and IT systems, safe prescribing, improved communication and education, and drug adherence.

The MedSafer Study-Electronic Decision Support for Deprescribing in Hospitalized Older Adults: A Cluster Randomized Clinical Trial.

IMPORTANCE: Scalable deprescribing interventions may reduce polypharmacy and the use of potentially inappropriate medications (PIMs); however, few studies have been large enough to evaluate the impact that deprescribing may have on adverse drug events (ADEs). OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effect of an electronic deprescribing decision support tool on ADEs after hospital discharge among older adults with polypharmacy. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: This was a cluster randomized clinical trial of older (≥65 years) hospitalized patients with an expected survival of more than 3 months who were admitted to 1 of 11 acute care hospitals in Canada from August 22, 2017, to January 13, 2020. At admission, participants were taking 5 or more medications per day. Data analyses were performed from January 3, 2021, to September 23, 2021. INTERVENTIONS: Personalized reports of deprescribing opportunities generated by MedSafer software to address usual home medications and measures of prognosis and frailty. Deprescribing reports provided to the treating team were compared with usual care (medication reconciliation). MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: The primary outcome was a reduction of ADEs within the first 30 days postdischarge (including adverse drug withdrawal events) captured through structured telephone surveys and adjudicated blinded to intervention status. Secondary outcomes were the proportion of patients with 1 or more PIMs deprescribed at discharge and the proportion of patients with an adverse drug withdrawal event (ADWE). RESULTS: A total of 5698 participants (median [range] age, 78 [72-85] years; 2858 [50.2%] women; race and ethnicity data were not collected) were enrolled in 3 clusters and were adjudicated for the primary outcome (control, 3204; intervention, 2494). Despite cluster randomization, there were group imbalances, eg, the participants in the intervention arm were older and had more PIMS prescribed at baseline. After hospital discharge, 4989 (87.6%) participants completed an ADE interview. There was no significant difference in ADEs within 30 days of discharge (138 [5.0%] of 2742 control vs 111 [4.9%] of 2247 intervention participants; adjusted risk difference [aRD] -0.8%; 95% CI, -2.9% to 1.3%). Deprescribing increased from 795 (29.8%) of 2667 control to 1249 (55.4%) of 2256 intervention participants [aRD, 22.2%; 95% CI, 16.9% to 27.4%]. There was no difference in ADWEs between groups. Several post hoc sensitivity analyses, including the use of a nonparametric test to address the low cluster number, group imbalances, and potential biases, did not alter study conclusions. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: This cluster randomized clinical trial showed that providing deprescribing clinical decision support during acute hospitalization had no demonstrable impact on ADEs, although the intervention was safe and led to improvements in deprescribing. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03272607.

The Health System Impact Fellowship: Perspectives From the Program Leads Comment on "CIHR Health System Impact Fellows: Reflections on 'Driving Change' Within the Health System".

As the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR) leads in designing and implementing the new Health System Impact (HSI) Fellowship program, we congratulate Sim et al for their thoughtful contribution to the nascent literature on embedded research, and for advancing our own learning about the HSI Fellowship experience. In our commentary, we describe the HSI Fellowship and its key components, discuss the factors that motivated and inspired the creation of the program, and highlight successes thus far.

Training for Impact: PhD Modernization as a Key Resource for Learning Health Systems.

The Institute of Medicine (IOM) has articulated a vision of a learning health system (LHS) as one that provides the best care at lower costs and that constantly, systematically and seamlessly improves based on data and evidence (IOM 2013). The IOM identifies the four foundational characteristics of an LHS as the real-time use of data and informatics to capture the care experience, patient-clinician partnerships, incentives aligned for value and a leadership-instilled culture of learning (IOM 2013). Although much policy research and commentary has focused on informatics and incentives, relatively less has focused on the critical question of creating a culture of learning in these systems. And although its source is debated, most management gurus agree with the adage that "culture eats strategy for breakfast" (Cave 2017), which is why a focus on the cultural dimension is critically important. Some scholars have recognized the important role of human capital - and of front-line clinicians in particular - in the LHS (Verma and Bhatia 2016). In addition to clinicians, doctorally prepared individuals, such as those with a PhD in health services and policy research (HSPR) and fields such as health economics, epidemiology and health informatics, have the potential to make significant contributions to LHSs and health system reform (Bornstein 2016; Brown and Nuti 2016; CIHR-IHSPR 2016). But having a PhD in these fields is not the same as being prepared to support progress toward an LHS. As argued in other papers, substantial change in doctoral training is needed so that graduates can contribute to their full potential and help drive real innovation within the health system (Bornstein 2016; CIHR-IHSPR 2016; Reid 2016).

Developing Competencies for Health System Impact: Early Lessons Learned from the Health System Impact Fellows.

BACKGROUND: The Health System Impact (HSI) Fellowship program provides highly qualified post-doctoral fellows studying health services and policy research (HSPR) with opportunities for experiential learning, enriched core competency development and mentorship from senior-level leaders within health system organizations. Its overall aim is to prepare post-doctoral fellows with the research and professional skills, experiences and networks to make meaningful and impactful contributions in careers in academic and applied health system settings. OBJECTIVE: This study examined whether this HSI Fellowship program has contributed to the development of enriched core competencies in HSPR. METHODS: A competency assessment tool was developed and administered to the 46 fellows and their health system and academic supervisors from the inaugural HSI Fellowship cohort. Fellows' self-assessments at baseline, three months and 12 months were analyzed, along with supervisors' assessments at three and 12 months. Descriptive analyses were used to examine competency development over time. Differences by gender and between supervisor and fellow ratings were analyzed. RESULTS: HSI fellows' self-assessments indicate that they strengthened their skills in all 10 enriched core competencies. Supervisors' assessments of the fellows' competencies also improved from baseline to 12 months. Gender differences at baseline disappeared by the 12-month assessment. CONCLUSION: The HSI Fellowship provides an opportunity to develop the full suite of enriched core competencies, particularly in competency domains that are not currently emphasized in HSPR doctoral curriculum.

The MedSafer Study: A Controlled Trial of an Electronic Decision Support Tool for Deprescribing in Acute Care.

OBJECTIVES: Polypharmacy is common, costly, and harmful for hospitalized older adults. Scalable strategies to reduce the burden of potentially inappropriate medications (PIMs) are needed. We sought to leverage medication reconciliation in hospitalized older adults by pairing with MedSafer, an electronic decision support tool for deprescribing. DESIGN: This was a nonrandomized controlled before-and-after study. SETTING: The study took place on four internal medicine clinical teaching units. PARTICIPANTS: Subjects were aged 65 years and older, had an expected prognosis of 3 or more months, and were taking five or more usual home medications. INTERVENTION: In the baseline phase, patients received usual care that was medication reconciliation. Patients in the intervention arm also had a "deprescribing opportunity report" generated by MedSafer and provided to their in-hospital treating team. MEASUREMENTS: The primary outcome was ascertained at the time of hospital discharge and was the proportion of patients who had one or more PIMs deprescribed. RESULTS: A total of 1066 patients were enrolled, and deprescribing opportunities were present for 873 (82%; 418 during the control and 455 during the intervention phases, respectively). The proportion of patients with one or more PIMs deprescribed at discharge increased from 46.9% in the control period to 54.7% in the intervention period with an adjusted absolute risk difference of 8.3% (2.9%-13.9%). Not all classes of drugs in the intervention arm were associated with an increase in deprescribing, and new PIM starts were equally common in both arms of the study. CONCLUSION: Using an electronic decision support tool for deprescribing, we increased the proportion of patients with one or more PIMs deprescribed at hospital discharge as compared with usual care. Although this type of intervention may help address medication overload in hospitalized patients, it also underscores the importance of powering future trials for a reduction in adverse drug events. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT02918058. J Am Geriatr Soc 67:1843-1850, 2019.

Derivation and validation of a multivariable model to predict when primary care physicians prescribe antidepressants for indications other than depression.

OBJECTIVE: Physicians commonly prescribe antidepressants for indications other than depression that are not evidence-based and need further evaluation. However, lack of routinely documented treatment indications for medications in administrative and medical databases creates a major barrier to evaluating antidepressant use for indications besides depression. Thus, the aim of this study was to derive a model to predict when primary care physicians prescribe antidepressants for indications other than depression and to identify important determinants of this prescribing practice. METHODS: Prediction study using antidepressant prescriptions from January 2003-December 2012 in an indication-based electronic prescribing system in Quebec, Canada. Patients were linked to demographic files, medical billings data, and hospital discharge summary data to create over 370 candidate predictors. The final prediction model was derived on a random 75% sample of the data using 3-fold cross-validation integrated within a score-based forward stepwise selection procedure. The performance of the final model was assessed in the remaining 25% of the data. RESULTS: Among 73,576 antidepressant prescriptions, 32,405 (44.0%) were written for indications other than depression. Among 40 predictors in the final model, the most important covariates included the molecule name, the patient's education level, the physician's workload, the prescribed dose, and diagnostic codes for plausible indications recorded in the past year. The final model had good discrimination (concordance (c) statistic 0.815; 95% CI, 0.787-0.847) and good calibration (ratio of observed to expected events 0.986; 95% CI, 0.842-1.136). CONCLUSION: In the absence of documented treatment indications, researchers may be able to use health services data to accurately predict when primary care physicians prescribe antidepressants for indications other than depression. Our prediction model represents a valuable tool for enabling researchers to differentiate between antidepressant use for depression versus other indications, thus addressing a major barrier to performing pharmacovigilance research on antidepressants.

Development of Enriched Core Competencies for Health Services and Policy Research.

OBJECTIVE: To develop an enriched set of core competencies for health services and policy research (HSPR) doctoral training that will help graduates maximize their impact across a range of academic and nonacademic work environments and roles. DATA SOURCES/STUDY SETTING: Data were obtained from multiple sources, including literature reviews, key informant interviews, stakeholder consultations, and Expert Working Group (EWG) meetings between January 2015 and March 2016. The study setting is Canada. STUDY DESIGN: The study used qualitative methods and an iterative development process with significant stakeholder engagement throughout. DATA COLLECTION/EXTRACTION METHODS: The literature reviews, key informant interviews, existing data on graduate career trajectories, and EWG deliberations informed the identification of career profiles for HSPR graduates and the competencies required to succeed in these roles. Stakeholder consultations were held to vet, refine, and validate the competencies. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: The EWG reached consensus on six sectors and eight primary roles in which HSPR doctoral graduates can bring value to employers and the health system. Additionally, 10 core competencies were identified that should be included or further emphasized in the training of HSPR doctoral students to increase their preparedness and potential for impact in a variety of roles within and outside of traditional academic workplaces. CONCLUSION: The results offer an expanded view of potential career paths for HSPR doctoral graduates and provide recommendations for an expanded set of core competencies that will better equip graduates to maximize their impact on the health system.

The Importance of Relevance: Willingness to Share eHealth Data for Family Medicine Research.

Objective: To determine the proportion of family medicine patients unwilling to allow their eHealth data to be used for research purposes, and evaluate how patient characteristics and the relevance of research impact that decision. Design: Cross-sectional questionnaire. Setting: Acute care respiratory clinic or an outpatient family medicine clinic in Montreal, Quebec. Participants: Four hundred seventy-four waiting room patients recruited via convenience sampling. Main Outcome Measures: A self-administered questionnaire collected data on age, gender, employment status, education, mother tongue and perceived health status. The main outcome of was self-reported relevance of three research scenarios and willingness or refusal to share their anonymized data. Responses were compared for family practice vs. specialty care patients. Results: The questionnaire was completed by 229 family medicine respondents and 245 outpatient respondents. Almost a quarter of all respondents felt the research was not relevant. Family medicine patients (15.7%) were unwilling to allow their data to be used for at least one scenario vs. 9.4% in the outpatient clinic. Lack of relevance (OR 11.55; 95% CI 5.12-26.09) and being in family practice (OR 2.13; 95% CI 1.06-4.27) increased the likelihood of refusal to share data for research. Conclusion: Family medicine patients were somewhat less willing to share eHealth data, but the overall refusal rate indicates a need to better engage patients in understanding the significance of full access to eHealth data for the purposes of research. Personal relevance of the research had a strong impact on the responses arguing for better efforts to make research more pertinent to patients.

Inappropriate prescribing practices: the challenge and opportunity for patient safety.

Adverse clinical events related to inappropriate prescribing practices are an important threat to patient safety. Avoidance of inappropriate prescribing in community settings, where the majority of prescriptions are written, offers a major area of opportunity to improve quality of care and outcomes. Electronic medication order entry systems, with automated clinical risk screening and online alerting capabilities, appear as particularly promising enabling tools in such settings. The Medical Office of the Twenty First Century (MOXXI-III) research group is currently utilizing such a system that integrates identification of dosing errors, adverse drug interactions, drug-disease and allergy contraindications and potential toxicity or contraindications based on patient age. This paper characterizes the spectrum of alerts in an urban community of care involving 28 physicians and 32 pharmacies. Over a consecutive nine-month period, alerts were generated in 29% of 22,419 prescriptions, resulting in revised prescriptions in 14% of the alert cases. Drug-disease contraindications were the most common driver of alerts, accounting for 41% of the total and resulting in revised prescriptions in 14% of cases. In contrast, potential dosing errors generated only 8% of all alerts, but resulted in revised prescriptions 23% of the time. Overall, online evidence-based screening and alerting around prescription of medications in a community setting demands confirmation in prescribers' clinical decision making in almost one-third of prescriptions and leads to changed decisions in up to one-quarter of some prescribing categories. Its ultimate determination of clinical relevance to patient safety may, however, have to await more detailed examination of physician response to alerts and patient outcomes as a primary measure of utility. Patient safety is an increasingly recognized challenge and opportunity for stakeholders in improving health care delivery. It involves many issues, including delayed diagnosis and treatment, as well as inappropriate undertreatment and overtreatment. The common denominators, however, are that care and outcomes could be better, and there is a role for patients, providers and policy makers in making improvements.

Challenges to the implementation of a nationwide electronic prescribing network in primary care: a qualitative study of users' perceptions.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to identify physicians' and pharmacists' perceptions of the challenges and benefits to implementing a nationwide electronic prescribing network linking medical clinics and community pharmacies in Quebec, Canada. METHODS: Forty-nine people (12 general practitioners, 2 managers, 33 community pharmacists, and 2 pharmacy staff members) from 40 points of care (10 primary care clinics (42% of all the connected sites) and 30 community pharmacies (44%)) were interviewed in 2013. Verbatim transcripts were analyzed using thematic analysis. RESULTS: A low level of network use was observed. Most pharmacists processed e-prescriptions by manual entry instead of importing electronically. They reported concerns about potential errors generated by importing e-prescriptions, mainly due to the instruction field. Paper prescriptions were still perceived as the best means for safe and effective processing of prescriptions in pharmacies. Speed issues when validating e-prescription messages were seen as an irritant by physicians, and resulted in several of them abandoning transmission. Displaying the medications based on the dispensing data was identified as the main obstacle to meaningful use of medication histories. CONCLUSIONS: Numerous challenges impeded realization of the benefits of this network. Standards for e-prescription messages, as well as rules for message validation, need to be improved to increase the potential benefits of e-prescriptions. Standard drug terminology including the concept of clinical medication should be developed, and the implementation of rules in local applications to allow for the classification and reconciliation of medication lists from dispensing data should be made a priority.