Structured medication reviews for adults with multimorbidity and polypharmacy in primary care: a systematic review protocol.

INTRODUCTION: Polypharmacy is common among individuals with multimorbidity, often leading to inappropriate medication use and is associated with an increased risk of frailty, hospitalisation and mortality. Structured medication reviews (SMRs) have emerged as a promising method for optimising medication use. However, research examining their efficacy is limited. This review aims to evaluate the impact of SMRs on improving outcomes for adults with multimorbidity and polypharmacy in primary care settings. Additionally, this review seeks to identify prevailing patterns and trends in the mode of delivery of SMRs. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: A systematic review will be conducted using Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid EMBASE, Web of Science and CINAHL (1997-present). Primary outcomes will include medication-related measures such as dose, frequency and dosage form. Secondary outcomes under investigation will include physical, mental, functional and health service outcomes, as reported. Two independent reviewers will conduct the screening and data extraction, resolving disagreements through discussion. Once eligible studies are identified, the extracted data will be summarised in tabular format. The risk of bias in the articles will be assessed using either the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2 tool or the Newcastle-Ottawa scale, depending on the design of the studies retrieved. Subgroup analysis will be performed using demographic variables and modes of delivery where the data supports. If appropriate, a meta-analysis of the data extracted will be conducted to determine the impact of the SMRs on reported outcomes. If a meta-analysis is not possible due to heterogeneity, a narrative synthesis approach will be adopted. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This proposed review is exempt from ethical approval as it aims to collate and summarise peer-reviewed, published evidence. This protocol and the subsequent review will be disseminated in peer-reviewed journals, conferences and patient-led lay summaries. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42023454965.

Interdisciplinary systematic review: does alignment between system and design shape adoption and use of barcode medication administration technology?

BACKGROUND: In order to reduce safety risks associated with medication administrations, technologies such as barcode medication administration (BCMA) are increasingly used. Examining how human factors influence adoption and usability of this technology can potentially highlight areas for improvement in design and implementation. OBJECTIVE: To describe how human factors related determinants for BCMA have been researched and reported by healthcare and human-computer interaction disciplines. DATA SOURCES: The Cumulative Index of Nursing, and Allied Health Literature, PubMed, OVID MEDLINE and Google Scholar. STUDY ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: Primary research published from April 2000 to April 2020, search terms developed to identity different disciplinary research perspectives that examined BCMA use, used a human factors lens and were published in English. SYNTHESIS METHODS: Computerised systematic searches were conducted in four databases. Eligible papers were systematically analysed for themes. Themes were discussed with a second reviewer and supervisors to ensure they were representative of content. RESULTS: Of 3707 papers screened, 11 were included. Studies did not fit neatly into a clinical or human-computer interaction perspective but instead uncovered a range of overlapping narratives, demonstrating consensus on the key themes despite differing research approaches. Prevalent themes were misaligned design and workflow, adaptation and workarounds, mediating factors, safety, users' perceptions and design and usability. Inadequate design frequently led to workarounds, which jeopardised safety. Reported mediating factors included clarity of user needs, pre/post implementation evaluations, analysis of existing workarounds and appropriate technology, infrastructure and staffing. LIMITATIONS: Most studies were relatively small and qualitative, making it difficult to generalise findings. CONCLUSION: Evaluating interdisciplinary perspectives including human factors approaches identified similar and complementary enablers and barriers to successful technology use. Often, mediating factors were developed to compensate for unsuitable design; a collaborative approach between system designer and end users is necessary for BCMA to achieve its true safety potential.