Evidence-based Medication knowledge Brokers in Residential Aged CarE (EMBRACE): protocol for a helix-counterbalanced randomised controlled trial.

INTRODUCTION: Clinical practice guidelines recommend against the routine use of psychotropic medications in residential aged care facilities (RACFs). Knowledge brokers are individuals or groups who facilitate the transfer of knowledge into practice. The objective of this trial is to evaluate the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of using knowledge brokers to translate Australia's new Clinical Practice Guidelines for the Appropriate Use of Psychotropic Medications in People Living with Dementia and in Residential Aged Care. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The Evidence-based Medication knowledge Brokers in Residential Aged CarE (EMBRACE) trial is a helix-counterbalanced randomised controlled trial. The 12-month trial will be conducted in up to 19 RACFs operated by four Australian aged care provider organisations in Victoria, New South Wales, Western Australia and Queensland. RACFs will be randomised to receive three levels of implementation strategies (knowledge broker service, pharmacist-led quality use of medications education activities and distribution of the Guidelines and supporting materials) across three medication contexts (antipsychotics, benzodiazepines and antidepressants). Implementation strategies will be delivered by an embedded on-site aged care pharmacist working at a system level across each participating RACF. All RACFs will receive all implementation strategies simultaneously but for different medication contexts. The primary outcome will be a composite dichotomous measure of 6-month RACF-level concordance with Guideline recommendations and good practice statements among people using antipsychotics, benzodiazepines and antidepressants for changed behaviours. Secondary outcomes will include proportion of residents with Guideline concordant use of antipsychotics, benzodiazepines and antidepressants measured at the RACF-level and proportion of residents with psychotropic medication use, hospitalisation, falls, falls with injury, polypharmacy, quality of life, activities of daily living, medication incidents and behavioural incidents measured at the RACF-level. DISCUSSION: The EMBRACE trial investigates a novel guideline implementation strategy to improve the safe and effective use of psychotropic medications in RACFs. We anticipate that the findings will provide new information on the potential role of knowledge brokers for successful and cost-effective guideline implementation. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ANZCTR): ACTRN12623001141639. Registered 6 November 2023 - retrospectively registered, https://www.anzctr.org.au/TrialSearch.aspx .

Economic evaluation of antimicrobial stewardship in primary care: a systematic review and quality assessment.

BACKGROUND: Primary care accounts for 80%-90% of antimicrobial prescriptions, making this setting an important focus for antimicrobial stewardship (AMS) interventions. OBJECTIVES: To collate the findings and critically appraise the qualities of economic evaluation studies of AMS or related interventions aimed at reducing inappropriate antimicrobial prescribing in primary care. METHODS: A systematic review of economic evaluations of interventions aimed at reducing inappropriate antimicrobial prescribing in primary care was performed. Published literature were retrieved through a search of Medline, Embase, EconLit and Web of Science databases for the period 2010 to 2020. The quality of the studies was assessed using the Consensus on Health Economic Criteria checklist and Good Practice Guidelines for Decision-Analytic Modelling in Health Technology Assessment. RESULTS: Of the 2722 records identified, 12 studies were included in the review (8 trial-based and 4 modelled evaluations). The most common AMS interventions were communication skills training for health professionals and C-reactive protein point-of-care testing (CRP-POCT). Types of economic evaluations included in the review were cost-effectiveness (7 studies), cost-utility (1), cost-benefit (2), cost-effectiveness and cost-utility (1) and cost analysis (1). While six of the studies found AMS interventions to be cost-effective, the other six reported them as not cost-effective or inconclusive. The quality of the studies ranged from good to low. CONCLUSIONS: There were significant variations in cost-effectiveness of AMS interventions across studies and depending on the inclusion of cost components such as the cost of antimicrobial resistance. However, communication skills training and CRP-POCT were frequently cost-effective or cost-beneficial for reducing inappropriate antimicrobial prescribing.