The effect of deprescribing interventions on mortality and health outcomes in older people: An updated systematic review and meta-analysis.

AIMS: Previous systematic reviews suggest that deprescribing may improve survival, particularly in frail older people. Evidence is rapidly accumulating, suggesting a need for an updated review of the literature. METHODS: We updated a 2016 systematic review and meta-analysis to include studies published from inception to 26 April 2024 from specified databases. Studies in which older people had at least one medication deprescribed were included and grouped by study designs and targeted medications. The risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane tool and the Newcastle-Ottawa tool. Odds ratios (OR) or mean differences were calculated as the effect measures using either the Mantel-Haenszel or generic inverse-variance method with fixed- or random-effects meta-analyses. The primary outcome was mortality. Secondary outcomes were adverse drug withdrawal events, physical health, cognitive function, quality of life and effect on medication regimen. Subgroup analyses were performed based on age and intervention types. RESULTS: A total of 259 studies (reported in 286 papers) were included in this updated review. Deprescribing polypharmacy did not result in a significant reduction in mortality in both randomized (OR 0.96, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.84-1.09) and non-randomized studies (OR 0.70, 95% CI 0.36-1.38). Further subgroup analyses of randomized studies on deprescribing polypharmacy demonstrated a significant reduction in mortality in the young old (aged 65-79) (OR 0.71, 95% CI 0.51-0.99) and when patient-specific interventions were applied (OR 0.79, 95% CI 0.63-0.99). CONCLUSIONS: Deprescribing can be achieved with potentially important benefits in terms of improved survival, particularly when patient-specific interventions are applied and initiated early in the young old.

Pharmacists working in residential aged care: a survey of pharmacist interest and perceived preparedness.

BACKGROUND: Pharmacists involvement in residential aged care facilities has traditionally been limited to that of an external contractor providing medication reviews, or medication supply. AIM: To explore Australian pharmacists' interest and perceived preparedness to work as on-site pharmacists in residential aged care. METHOD: National cross-sectional anonymous online survey open for two weeks (September 17th to October 1st 2022) consisting of Likert-type, multiple choice and multiple selection questions. Australian pharmacists were recruited using a broad advertising strategy which included social and traditional media platforms, and snowball sampling. Data were collected on pharmacist self-reported interest and perceived preparedness to work as on-site aged care pharmacists in residential aged care. Data were analysed using descriptive statistics. RESULTS: Responses were received from 720 participants, 643 were eligible. Most participants were female (n = 466, 73%) and mean (SD) age was 43.5 (SD 12.5) years. Over half the participants were interested or extremely interested in working as an on-site aged care pharmacist (56%, n = 360), and agreed or strongly agreed (n = 475, 76%) that they felt prepared to work as an on-site aged care pharmacist. Most pharmacists felt prepared to engage in a variety of roles within the facilities (> 73% for each role), including resident and system level roles, and the majority agreed they felt prepared to engage with stakeholders, including general practitioners (93%) and medical specialists (86%). CONCLUSION: Pharmacists reported they are interested and feel prepared to work as on-site aged care pharmacists. These findings will inform the roll-out of this new model of care to enhance multidisciplinary collaboration in residential aged care.

Perceptions and expectations of health professionals regarding hospital pharmacy services and the roles of hospital pharmacists: A qualitative systematic review and meta-synthesis.

Background: Pharmacists have become increasingly integrated within the interprofessional hospital team as their scope of practice expanded in recent decades. However, limited research has explored how the roles of hospital pharmacists are perceived by other health professionals. Aim/Objectives: To identify what is known about the perceptions of hospital pharmacists' roles and hospital pharmacy services held by non-pharmacist health professionals. Methods: A systematic literature search was conducted in August 2022 in MEDLINE, Embase, and CINAHL to identify peer-reviewed articles published between 2011 and 2022. Title/abstract and full-text screening, by two independent reviewers, identified eligible articles. Inclusion criteria included qualitative studies in hospital settings that reported perceptions regarding the roles of hospital pharmacists held by non-pharmacist health professionals. Data were extracted using a standardised extraction tool. Collated qualitative data underwent inductive thematic analysis by two independent investigators to identify codes, which were reconciled and merged into over-arching themes through a consensus process. Findings were assessed to measure confidence using the GRADE-CERQual criteria. Results: The search resulted in 14,718 hits. After removing duplicates, 10,551 studies underwent title/abstract screening. Of these, 515 underwent full-text review, and 36 were included for analysis. Most studies included perceptions held by medical or nursing staff. Hospital pharmacists were perceived as valuable, competent and supportive. At an organisational level, the roles of hospital pharmacists were perceived to benefit hospital workflow and improve patient safety. Roles contributing to all four domains of the World Health Organization's Strategic Framework of the Global Patient Safety Challenge were recognised. Highly-valued roles include medication reviews, provision of drug information, and education for health professionals. Conclusion: This review describes the roles hospital pharmacists performed within the interprofessional team, as reported by non-pharmacist health professionals internationally. Multidisciplinary perceptions and expectations of these roles may guide the prioritisation and optimisation of hospital pharmacy services.

What types of information do pharmacists include in comprehensive medication management review reports? A qualitative content analysis.

BACKGROUND: Comprehensive medication management reviews are an established intervention to identify medication-related problems, such as the prescribing of potentially inappropriate medications, and under- and over-prescribing. However, the types of information included in written reports of comprehensive medication management reviews, beyond types of medication-related problems, are unknown. AIM: This study aimed to explore the types of information Australian pharmacists include in their written reports following comprehensive medication management reviews. METHOD: Australian consultant pharmacists were invited to upload their 10 most recent written reports of their domiciliary-based comprehensive medication management reviews. A random selection of the reports, stratified by each pharmacist, were included for qualitative content analysis. RESULTS: Seventy-two de-identified reports from eight consultant pharmacists located in five of the eight Australian States and Territories were included for analysis. From the evaluated reports, four major categories of information were identified: (1) patient details such as date of interview (n = 72, 100%) and medicine history (n = 70, 97%); (2) pharmacist assessment including assessment of the patient (n = 70, 97%), medicines management (n = 68, 94%) and medicine-related issues (n = 60, 83%); (3) pharmacist recommendations, specifically pharmacological recommendations (n = 67, 93%); and (4) patient-centred experiences such as perspectives on medicines (n = 56, 78%). Reporting of patient-centred experiences appeared most variably in the included reports, including patient concerns (n = 38, 53%), willingness for change (n = 27, 38%), patient preferences (n = 13, 18%), and patient goals (n = 7, 10%). CONCLUSION: Pharmacists within our study included a wide variety of information in their comprehensive medication management review reports. Aside from medication-related problems, pharmacists commonly provided a holistic assessment of the patients they care for. However, variability across reports has the potential to impact consistent service delivery.

Clinical pharmacists' reported approaches and processes for undertaking Home Medicines Review services: A national survey.

INTRODUCTION: Comprehensive medicines reviews are a strategy to reduce medicines-related harm. In Australia, Home Medicines Review services (HMRs) are provided by consultant pharmacists to community-dwelling consumers, on referral from the consumer's medical practitioner. Limited research exists on the processes undertaken by consultant pharmacists when delivering HMRs, particularly as it relates to the information types received, collected, and reported. OBJECTIVE: Describe the types of information consultant pharmacists report receiving in HMR referrals, collect before and during consumer consultations, and include in their written reports. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We conducted a national online survey of Australian consultant pharmacists who deliver HMRs. Participants were recruited using a broad advertising strategy, including social and traditional media platforms, and snowballing. Data were analysed descriptively. RESULTS: Of the 248 eligible participants, 179 (72%) completed the survey. The most commonly included information in the referral was medication list (97%), the least were details of hospitalisations (8%) and specialist letters (5%). Information pertaining to hospitalisation and specialist letters were collected by 20% of participants prior to the consultation. Details of, and history from, community pharmacy was the most sought information prior to consultations. Less than a quarter of participants 'most of the time' or 'always' formally assess adherence using a validated instrument during the consultation. Participants commonly (80%) report consumer concerns in the written report. CONCLUSIONS: Consultant pharmacists collect a broad variety of information, beyond medicines-related content. Written HMR reports by consultant pharmacists were often reported to be consumer-centric.

Factors influencing pharmacist interest and preparedness to work as on-site aged care pharmacists: Insights from qualitative analysis of free-text survey responses.

BACKGROUND: High rates of suboptimal medication use exist in residential aged care facilities (RACFs). Pharmacist interventions can improve medication appropriateness. In 2023 there will be a phased implementation of pharmacists working on-site in Australian RACFs. OBJECTIVE: To explore factors influencing Australian pharmacists' interest and perceived preparedness to work as on-site pharmacists in RACFs. METHODS: A national cross-sectional anonymous online survey of Australian pharmacists was conducted. Pharmacists were recruited using a broad advertising strategy. The 36-question survey included three free-text questions that are the focus of this study. The questions asked participants (1) what influenced their interest in the role, (2) what influenced how prepared they felt for the role, and (3) if they had any other comments about the role. Responses were thematically analysed by two investigators using an inductive approach. RESULTS: Most survey respondents (n=546, 84.9%) answered at least one free-text questions. Four factors influenced interest: on-site pharmacist role, aged care setting, individual pharmacist circumstances and employment model. Four factors influenced preparedness: familiarity with aged care setting, resident-level clinical skills; ability to communicate and work with a multidisciplinary team, and experience with system-level quality use of medicines activities. Four factors important for successful roll-out emerged from the 'other comments': pharmacist attributes, pharmacist workforce planning, resources and support, and RACF stakeholder engagement. CONCLUSION: Key factors influencing pharmacist interest and preparedness to work on-site in RACFs and factors important for success were identified. These findings will support the national roll-out of the role, particularly as most identified factors are currently modifiable.