Protocol for the development and validation of a Polypharmacy Assessment Score.

BACKGROUND: An increasing number of people are using multiple medications each day, named polypharmacy. This is driven by an ageing population, increasing multimorbidity, and single disease-focussed guidelines. Medications carry obvious benefits, yet polypharmacy is also linked to adverse consequences including adverse drug events, drug-drug and drug-disease interactions, poor patient experience and wasted resources. Problematic polypharmacy is 'the prescribing of multiple medicines inappropriately, or where the intended benefits are not realised'. Identifying people with problematic polypharmacy is complex, as multiple medicines can be suitable for people with several chronic conditions requiring more treatment. Hence, polypharmacy is often potentially problematic, rather than always inappropriate, dependent on clinical context and individual benefit vs risk. There is a need to improve how we identify and evaluate these patients by extending beyond simple counts of medicines to include individual factors and long-term conditions. AIM: To produce a Polypharmacy Assessment Score to identify a population with unusual levels of prescribing who may be at risk of potentially problematic polypharmacy. METHODS: Analyses will be performed in three parts: 1. A prediction model will be constructed using observed medications count as the dependent variable, with age, gender and long-term conditions as independent variables. A 'Polypharmacy Assessment Score' will then be constructed through calculating the differences between the observed and expected count of prescribed medications, thereby highlighting people that have unexpected levels of prescribing. Parts 2 and 3 will examine different aspects of validity of the Polypharmacy Assessment Score: 2. To assess 'construct validity', cross-sectional analyses will evaluate high-risk prescribing within populations defined by a range of Polypharmacy Assessment Scores, using both explicit (STOPP/START criteria) and implicit (Medication Appropriateness Index) measures of inappropriate prescribing. 3. To assess 'predictive validity', a retrospective cohort study will explore differences in clinical outcomes (adverse drug reactions, unplanned hospitalisation and all-cause mortality) between differing scores. DISCUSSION: Developing a cross-cutting measure of polypharmacy may allow healthcare professionals to prioritise and risk stratify patients with polypharmacy using unusual levels of prescribing. This would be an improvement from current approaches of either using simple cutoffs or narrow prescribing criteria.

Defining, identifying and addressing problematic polypharmacy within multimorbidity in primary care: a scoping review.

INTRODUCTION: Polypharmacy and multimorbidity pose escalating challenges. Despite numerous attempts, interventions have yet to show consistent improvements in health outcomes. A key factor may be varied approaches to targeting patients for intervention. OBJECTIVES: To explore how patients are targeted for intervention by examining the literature with respect to: understanding how polypharmacy is defined; identifying problematic polypharmacy in practice; and addressing problematic polypharmacy through interventions. DESIGN: We performed a scoping review as defined by the Joanna Briggs Institute. SETTING: The focus was on primary care settings. DATA SOURCES: Medline, Embase, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature and Cochrane along with ClinicalTrials.gov, Science.gov and WorldCat.org were searched from January 2004 to February 2024. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: We included all articles that had a focus on problematic polypharmacy in multimorbidity and primary care, incorporating multiple types of evidence, such as reviews, quantitative trials, qualitative studies and policy documents. Articles focussing on a single index disease or not written in English were excluded. EXTRACTION AND ANALYSIS: We performed a narrative synthesis, comparing themes and findings across the collective evidence to draw contextualised insights and conclusions. RESULTS: In total, 157 articles were included. Case-finding methods often rely on basic medication counts (often five or more) without considering medical history or whether individual medications are clinically appropriate. Other approaches highlight specific drug indicators and interactions as potentially inappropriate prescribing, failing to capture a proportion of patients not fitting criteria. Different potentially inappropriate prescribing criteria also show significant inconsistencies in determining the appropriateness of medications, often neglecting to consider multimorbidity and underprescribing. This may hinder the identification of the precise population requiring intervention. CONCLUSIONS: Improved strategies are needed to target patients with polypharmacy, which should consider patient perspectives, individual factors and clinical appropriateness. The development of a cross-cutting measure of problematic polypharmacy that consistently incorporates adjustment for multimorbidity may be a valuable next step to address frequent confounding.

Risk of Falls and Fractures in Individuals With Cataract, Age-Related Macular Degeneration, or Glaucoma.

Importance: Three leading disease causes of age-related visual loss are cataract, age-related macular degeneration (AMD), and glaucoma. Although all 3 eye diseases have been implicated with falls and fracture risk, evidence is mixed, with the contribution of different eye diseases being uncertain. Objective: To examine whether people with cataract, AMD, or glaucoma have higher risks of falls or fractures than those without. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cohort study was a population-based study in England using routinely collected electronic health records from the Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD) GOLD and Aurum primary care databases with linked hospitalization and mortality records from 2007 to 2020. Participants were people with cataract, AMD, or glaucoma matched to comparators (1:5) by age, sex, and general practice. Data were analyzed from May 2021 to June 2023. Exposures: For each eye disease, we estimated the risk of falls or fractures using separate multivariable Cox proportional hazards regression models. Main Outcomes: Two primary outcomes were incident falls and incident fractures derived from general practice, hospital, and mortality records. Secondary outcomes were incident fractures of specific body sites. Results: A total of 410 476 people with cataract, 75 622 with AMD, and 90 177 with glaucoma were matched (1:5) to 2 034 194 (no cataract), 375 548 (no AMD), and 448 179 (no glaucoma) comparators. The mean (SD) age was 73.8 (11.0) years, 79.4 (9.4) years, and 69.8 (13.1) years for participants with cataract, AMD, or glaucoma, respectively. Compared with comparators, there was an increased risk of falls in those with cataract (adjusted hazard ratio [HR], 1.36; 95% CI, 1.35-1.38), AMD (HR, 1.25; 95% CI, 1.23-1.27), and glaucoma (HR, 1.38; 95% CI, 1.35-1.41). Likewise for fractures, there were increased risks in all eye diseases, with an HR of 1.28 (95% CI, 1.27-1.30) in the cataract cohort, an HR of 1.18 (95% CI, 1.15-1.21) for AMD, and an HR of 1.31 (95% CI, 1.27-1.35) for glaucoma. Site-specific fracture analyses revealed increases in almost all body sites (including hip, spine, forearm, skull or facial bones, pelvis, ribs or sternum, and lower leg fractures) compared with matched comparators. Conclusions and Relevance: The results of this study support recognition that people with 1 or more of these eye diseases are at increased risk of both falls and fractures. They may benefit from improved advice, access, and referrals to falls prevention services.

Knowledge support for optimising antibiotic prescribing for common infections in general practices: evaluation of the effectiveness of periodic feedback, decision support during consultations and peer comparisons in a cluster randomised trial (BRIT2) - study protocol.

INTRODUCTION: This project applies a Learning Healthcare System (LHS) approach to antibiotic prescribing for common infections in primary care. The approach involves iterations of data analysis, feedback to clinicians and implementation of quality improvement activities by the clinicians. The main research question is, can a knowledge support system (KSS) intervention within an LHS implementation improve antibiotic prescribing without increasing the risk of complications? METHODS AND ANALYSIS: A pragmatic cluster randomised controlled trial will be conducted, with randomisation of at least 112 general practices in North-West England. General practices participating in the trial will be randomised to the following interventions: periodic practice-level and individual prescriber feedback using dashboards; or the same dashboards plus a KSS. Data from large databases of healthcare records are used to characterise heterogeneity in antibiotic uses, and to calculate risk scores for clinical outcomes and for the effectiveness of different treatment strategies. The results provide the baseline content for the dashboards and KSS. The KSS comprises a display within the electronic health record used during the consultation; the prescriber (general practitioner or allied health professional) will answer standard questions about the patient's presentation and will then be presented with information (eg, patient's risk of complications from the infection) to guide decision making. The KSS can generate information sheets for patients, conveyed by the clinicians during consultations. The primary outcome is the practice-level rate of antibiotic prescribing (per 1000 patients) with secondary safety outcomes. The data from practices participating in the trial and the dashboard infrastructure will be held within regional shared care record systems of the National Health Service in the UK. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Approved by National Health Service Ethics Committee IRAS 290050. The research results will be published in peer-reviewed journals and also disseminated to participating clinical staff and policy and guideline developers. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN16230629.

Understanding the implementation of interventions to improve the management of frailty in primary care: a rapid realist review.

OBJECTIVE: Identifying and managing the needs of frail people in the community is an increasing priority for policy makers. We sought to identify factors that enable or constrain the implementation of interventions for frail older persons in primary care. DESIGN: A rapid realist review. DATA SOURCES: Cochrane Library, SCOPUS and EMBASE, and grey literature. The search was conducted in September 2019 and rerun on 8 January 2022. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR SELECTING STUDIES: We considered all types of empirical studies describing interventions targeting frailty in primary care. ANALYSIS: We followed the Realist and Meta-narrative Evidence Syntheses: Evolving Standards quality and publication criteria for our synthesis to systematically analyse and synthesise the existing literature and to identify (intervention-context-mechanism-outcome) configurations. We used normalisation processes theory to illuminate mechanisms surrounding implementation. RESULTS: Our primary research returned 1755 articles, narrowed down to 29 relevant frailty intervention studies conducted in primary care. Our review identified two families of interventions. They comprised: (1) interventions aimed at the comprehensive assessment and management of frailty needs; and (2) interventions targeting specific frailty needs. Key factors that facilitate or inhibit the translation of frailty interventions into practice related to the distribution of resources; patient engagement and professional skill sets to address identified need. CONCLUSION: There remain challenges to achieving successful implementation of frailty interventions in primary care. There were a key learning points under each family. First, targeted allocation of resources to address specific needs allows a greater alignment of skill sets and reduces overassessment of frail individuals. Second, earlier patient involvement may also improve intervention implementation and adherence. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: The published protocol for the review is registered with PROSPERO (CRD42019161193).

Systematic review and narrative synthesis of computerized audit and feedback systems in healthcare.

OBJECTIVES: (1) Systematically review the literature on computerized audit and feedback (e-A&F) systems in healthcare. (2) Compare features of current systems against e-A&F best practices. (3) Generate hypotheses on how e-A&F systems may impact patient care and outcomes. METHODS: We searched MEDLINE (Ovid), EMBASE (Ovid), and CINAHL (Ebsco) databases to December 31, 2020. Two reviewers independently performed selection, extraction, and quality appraisal (Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool). System features were compared with 18 best practices derived from Clinical Performance Feedback Intervention Theory. We then used realist concepts to generate hypotheses on mechanisms of e-A&F impact. Results are reported in accordance with the PRISMA statement. RESULTS: Our search yielded 4301 unique articles. We included 88 studies evaluating 65 e-A&F systems, spanning a diverse range of clinical areas, including medical, surgical, general practice, etc. Systems adopted a median of 8 best practices (interquartile range 6-10), with 32 systems providing near real-time feedback data and 20 systems incorporating action planning. High-confidence hypotheses suggested that favorable e-A&F systems prompted specific actions, particularly enabled by timely and role-specific feedback (including patient lists and individual performance data) and embedded action plans, in order to improve system usage, care quality, and patient outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: e-A&F systems continue to be developed for many clinical applications. Yet, several systems still lack basic features recommended by best practice, such as timely feedback and action planning. Systems should focus on actionability, by providing real-time data for feedback that is specific to user roles, with embedded action plans. PROTOCOL REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42016048695.

Mixed methods evaluation of a computerised audit and feedback dashboard to improve patient safety through targeting acute kidney injury (AKI) in primary care.

BACKGROUND: Reducing the harms associated with acute kidney injury (AKI) requires addressing a wide range of patient safety issues, including polypharmacy and transitions of care, particularly for vulnerable patient groups. Computerised audit and feedback can transform the way healthcare organisations measure, analyse and learn from quality and safety data across different care settings, potentially improving patient safety. OBJECTIVE: To implement and evaluate an audit and feedback dashboard targeting AKI to improve patient safety, focusing on factors affecting a range of user characteristics in primary care. METHODS: We performed a mixed methods study in three stages. Semi-structured interviews were initially performed with both primary (n = 10) and secondary care (n = 5) staff to gather user requirements for six quality indicators extracted from national guidance on post-discharge AKI care. Modified indicators were implemented in the Performance Improvement plaN GeneratoR (PINGR) audit and feedback dashboard for six months, across 45 general practices in Salford. Primary care professionals were then interviewed again (n = 7) and completed usability questionnaires. This was triangulated with an interrupted time series analysis on indicator performance, alongside software usage statistics. RESULTS: Improvements were observed for the indicators for medication review (+9.01 %; 95 % Confidence Interval (CI), +6.95 % to +11.06 %) and blood pressure measurement (+5.20 %; 95 % CI + 3.61 % to +6.78 %). Variable performance and engagement were observed for other indicators including AKI coding (+0.39 %; 95 % CI -1.88 % to +2.65 %), serum creatinine (-3.40 %; 95 % CI -7.66 % to +0.85 %), proteinuria (-1.08 %; 95 % CI -1.47 % to +0.32 %) and providing patient information (+0.16 %; 95 % CI -0.41 % to +0.73 %). A key facilitator to engagement was the development of 'champions of change', achieved through a raised awareness of high-risk patients, guidelines, inconsistencies in coding practice and evidence for quality and safety performance. Barriers related to the specificity and perceived achievability of indicators, and limitations in resources. CONCLUSION: In a six-month, quasi-experimental evaluation of an electronic audit and feedback dashboard targeting AKI, we found improvements for two out of six quality indicators. While information technology can facilitate improvements in patient safety, further allocation of protected staff time and investment into shared learning are needed to realise those improvements in practice.

Guidance for post-discharge care following acute kidney injury: an appropriateness ratings evaluation.

BACKGROUND: Acute kidney injury (AKI) is associated with poor health outcomes, including increased mortality and rehospitalisation. National policy and patient safety drivers have targeted AKI as an example to ensure safer transitions of care. AIM: To establish guidance to promote high-quality transitions of care for adults following episodes of illness complicated by AKI. DESIGN & SETTING: An appropriateness ratings evaluation was undertaken using the RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method (RAM). The Royal College of General Practitioners (RCGP) AKI working group developed a range of clinical scenarios to help identify the necessary steps to be taken following discharge of a patient from secondary care into primary care in the UK. METHOD: A 10-person expert panel was convened to rate 819 clinical scenarios, testing the most appropriate time and action following hospital discharge. Specifically, the scenarios focused on determining the appropriateness and urgency for planning: an initial medication review; monitoring of kidney function; and assessment for albuminuria. RESULTS: Taking no action (that is, no medication review; no kidney monitoring; or no albuminuria testing) was rated inappropriate in all cases. In most scenarios, there was consensus that both the initial medication review and kidney function monitoring should take place within 1-2 weeks or 1 month, depending on clinical context. However, patients with heart failure and poor kidney recovery were rated to require expedited review. There was consensus that assessment for albuminuria should take place at 3 months after discharge following AKI. CONCLUSION: Systems to support tailored and timely post-AKI discharge care are required, especially in high-risk populations, such as people with heart failure.

Antibiotic choice in UK general practice: rates and drivers of potentially inappropriate antibiotic prescribing.

OBJECTIVES: To identify the rates of potentially inappropriate antibiotic choice when prescribing for common infections in UK general practices. To examine the predictors of such prescribing and the clustering effects at the practice level. METHODS: The rates of potentially inappropriate antibiotic choice were estimated using 1 151 105 consultations for sinusitis, otitis media and externa, upper respiratory tract infection (URTI) and lower respiratory tract infection (LRTI) and urinary tract infection (UTI), using the Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD). Multilevel logistic regression was used to identify the predictors of inappropriate prescribing and to quantify the clustering effect at practice level. RESULTS: The rates of potentially inappropriate prescriptions were highest for otitis externa (67.3%) and URTI (38.7%) and relatively low for otitis media (3.4%), sinusitis (2.2%), LRTI (1.5%) and UTI in adults (2.3%) and children (0.7%). Amoxicillin was the most commonly prescribed antibiotic for all respiratory tract infections, except URTI. Amoxicillin accounted for 62.3% of prescriptions for otitis externa and 34.5% of prescriptions for URTI, despite not being recommended for these conditions. A small proportion of the variation in the probability of an inappropriate choice was attributed to the clustering effect at practice level (8% for otitis externa and 23% for sinusitis). Patients with comorbidities were more likely to receive a potentially inappropriate antibiotic for URTI, LRTI and UTI in adults. Patients who received any antibiotic in the 12 months before consultation were more likely to receive a potentially inappropriate antibiotic for all conditions except otitis externa. CONCLUSIONS: Antibiotic prescribing did not always align with prescribing guidelines, especially for URTIs and otitis externa. Future interventions might target optimizing amoxicillin use in primary care.

Understanding the implementation of interventions to improve the management of chronic kidney disease in primary care: a rapid realist review.

BACKGROUND: Chronic kidney disease (CKD) is common and a significant marker of morbidity and mortality. Its management in primary care is essential for maintenance of cardiovascular health, avoidance of acute kidney injury (AKI) and delay in progression to end-stage renal disease. Although many guidelines and interventions have been established, there is global evidence of an implementation gap, including variable identification rates and low patient communication and awareness. The objective of this study is to understand the factors enabling and constraining the implementation of CKD interventions in primary care. METHODS: A rapid realist review was conducted that involved a primary literature search of three databases to identify existing CKD interventions in primary care between the years 2000 and 2014. A secondary search was performed as an iterative process and included bibliographic and grey literature searches of reference lists, authors and research groups. A systematic approach to data extraction using Normalisation Process Theory (NPT) illuminated key mechanisms and contextual factors that affected implementation. RESULTS: Our primary search returned 710 articles that were narrowed down to 18 relevant CKD interventions in primary care. Our findings suggested that effective management of resources (encompassing many types) was a significant contextual factor enabling or constraining the functioning of mechanisms. Three key intervention features were identified from the many that contributed to successful implementation. Firstly, it was important to frame CKD interventions appropriately, such as within the context of cardiovascular health and diabetes. This enabled buy-in and facilitated an understanding of the significance of CKD and the need for intervention. Secondly, interventions that were compatible with existing practices or patients' everyday lives were readily accepted. In contrast, new systems that could not be integrated were abandoned as they were viewed as inconvenient, generating more work. Thirdly, ownership of the feedback process allowed users to make individualised improvements to the intervention to suit their needs. CONCLUSIONS: Our rapid realist review identified mechanisms that need to be considered in order to optimise the implementation of interventions to improve the management of CKD in primary care. Further research into the factors that enable prolonged sustainability and cost-effectiveness is required for efficient resource utilisation.

Retrofibular osteochondroma with peroneal tendon subluxation.

Osteochondroma of the bone can cause a range of complications involving tendons, joints and neurovascular structures. Distal fibular osteochondroma and non-traumatic peroneal tendon subluxation are both rare. In this case report, we describe an unusual case of distal retrofibular osteochondroma in a 36-year old male causing peroneal tendon subluxation. He presented with pain and instability around his ankle, but with no history of trauma. He successfully underwent osteochondroma excision, peroneal groove deepening and a Brostrom-Gould type reconstruction for the lateral ankle ligament insufficiency. Complete resolution of the symptoms of instability and subluxation was noted upon 6-month follow up.