Prescribing, deprescribing and potential adverse effects of proton pump inhibitors in older patients with multimorbidity: an observational study.

BACKGROUND: Proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) contribute to polypharmacy and are associated with adverse effects. As prospective data on longitudinal patterns of PPI prescribing in older patients with multimorbidity are lacking, we sought to assess patterns of PPI prescribing and deprescribing, as well as the association of PPI use with hospital admissions over 1 year in this population. METHODS: We conducted a prospective, longitudinal cohort study using data from the Optimizing Therapy to Prevent Avoidable Hospital Admissions in Multimorbid Older Adults (OPERAM) trial, a randomized controlled trial testing an intervention to reduce inappropriate prescribing (2016-2018). This trial included adults aged 70 years and older with at least 3 chronic conditions and prescribed at least 5 chronic medications. We assessed prevalence of PPI use at time of hospital admission, and new prescriptions and deprescribing at discharge, and at 2 months and 1 year after discharge, by intervention group. We used a regression with competing risk for death to assess the association of PPI use with readmissions related to their potential adverse effects, and all-cause readmission. RESULTS: Overall, 1080 (57.4%) of 1879 patients (mean age 79 yr) had PPI prescriptions at admission, including 496 (45.9%) patients with a potentially inappropriate indication. At discharge, 133 (24.9%) of 534 patients in the intervention group and 92 (16.8%) of 546 patients in the control group who were using PPIs at admission had deprescribing. Among 680 patients who were not using PPIs at discharge, 47 (14.6%) of 321 patients in the intervention group and 40 (11.1%) of 359 patients in the control group had a PPI started within 2 months. Use of PPIs was associated with all-cause readmission (n = 770, subdistribution hazard ratio 1.31, 95% confidence interval 1.12-1.53). INTERPRETATION: Potentially inappropriate use of PPI, new PPI prescriptions and PPI deprescribing were frequent among older adults with multimorbidity and polypharmacy. These data suggest that persistent PPI use may be associated with clinically important adverse effects in this population.

De-implementing wisely: developing the evidence base to reduce low-value care.

Choosing Wisely (CW) campaigns globally have focused attention on the need to reduce low-value care, which can represent up to 30% of the costs of healthcare. Despite early enthusiasm for the CW initiative, few large-scale changes in rates of low-value care have been reported since the launch of these campaigns. Recent commentaries suggest that the focus of the campaign should be on implementation of evidence-based strategies to effectively reduce low-value care. This paper describes the Choosing Wisely De-Implementation Framework (CWDIF), a novel framework that builds on previous work in the field of implementation science and proposes a comprehensive approach to systematically reduce low-value care in both hospital and community settings and advance the science of de-implementation.The CWDIF consists of five phases: Phase 0, identification of potential areas of low-value healthcare; Phase 1, identification of local priorities for implementation of CW recommendations; Phase 2, identification of barriers to implementing CW recommendations and potential interventions to overcome these; Phase 3, rigorous evaluations of CW implementation programmes; Phase 4, spread of effective CW implementation programmes. We provide a worked example of applying the CWDIF to develop and evaluate an implementation programme to reduce unnecessary preoperative testing in healthy patients undergoing low-risk surgeries and to further develop the evidence base to reduce low-value care.

Facts and figures about patient associations in the Netherlands between 2007 and 2009: review of their activities and aims.

INTRODUCTION: To facilitate empowerment, the government encourages patient associations to participate in policy making discussions. To play a crucial role as one of the partners for the government in formulating policy on healthcare, information was needed about the activities and aims of Dutch patient associations. This article describes the development of the monitor in 2005 and 2006 and the most important outcomes and trends for 2007, 2008 and 2009. METHODS: Seven years ago, a yearly monitor of patient associations was started to quantify the activities of the patient and consumer movement in the Netherlands. We analyze individual Dutch patient associations focusing on empowerment and advocacy for their own members. RESULTS: Different types of associations pursue different goals to provide a 'voice' for their members. There was a very slight decline in individual members when comparing 2007 and 2009. More than a third of all associations have professional, paid employees. Organizations for disabled or mental disorders have the most volunteers. Peer support meetings for their own members remain the most popular activities. There are many small organizations and a few big ones. Advocacy remains important although the motives differ between patient associations. CONCLUSION: Dutch patient organizations reported activities they are expected to perform. They try to reduce information asymmetry by informing patients better through several media. They also provide peer support groups to their members. They reach the general public through their social media activities. Their primary focus is providing services to their members.

Benchmarking and reducing length of stay in Dutch hospitals.

BACKGROUND: To assess the development of and variation in lengths of stay in Dutch hospitals and to determine the potential reduction in hospital days if all Dutch hospitals would have an average length of stay equal to that of benchmark hospitals. METHODS: The potential reduction was calculated using data obtained from 69 hospitals that participated in the National Medical Registration (LMR). For each hospital, the average length of stay was adjusted for differences in type of admission (clinical or day-care admission) and case mix (age, diagnosis and procedure). We calculated the number of hospital days that theoretically could be saved by (i) counting unnecessary clinical admissions as day cases whenever possible, and (ii) treating all remaining clinical patients with a length of stay equal to the benchmark (15th percentile length of stay hospital). RESULTS: The average (mean) length of stay in Dutch hospitals decreased from 14 days in 1980 to 7 days in 2006. In 2006 more than 80% of all hospitals reached an average length of stay shorter than the 15th percentile hospital in the year 2000. In 2006 the mean length of stay ranged from 5.1 to 8.7 days. If the average length of stay of the 15th percentile hospital in 2006 is identified as the standard that other hospitals can achieve, a 14% reduction of hospital days can be attained. This percentage varied substantially across medical specialties. Extrapolating the potential reduction of hospital days of the 69 hospitals to all 98 Dutch hospitals yielded a total savings of 1.8 million hospital days (2006). The average length of stay in Dutch hospitals if all hospitals were able to treat their patients as the 15th percentile hospital would be 6 days and the number of day cases would increase by 13%. CONCLUSION: Hospitals in the Netherlands vary substantially in case mix adjusted length of stay. Benchmarking--using the method presented--shows the potential for efficiency improvement which can be realized by decreasing inputs (e.g. available beds for inpatient care). Future research should focus on the effect of length of stay reduction programs on outputs such as quality of care.