Measuring Quality of Life in Deprescribing Trials: A Scoping Review.

BACKGROUND: Quality of life (QoL) is an important outcome to capture in clinical trials evaluating deprescribing interventions. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to conduct a scoping review to examine how QoL has been measured in deprescribing trials among older people and identify potentially relevant QoL scales, to better inform QoL measurement in future deprescribing trials. METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Google Scholar, Epistemonikos, ClinicalTrials.gov, and reference lists of eligible studies (from inception to October 2023). We included randomized and non-randomized comparative studies with a control group that evaluated deprescribing and polypharmacy reduction interventions in people ≥ 65 years of age and measured QoL as an outcome. We also included studies describing the development and validation of QoL scales related to deprescribing, polypharmacy, or medication burden in adults ≥ 18 years of age. Two independent reviewers screened titles and abstracts, then full texts. Two independent reviewers extracted data from 25% of eligible studies in order to verify agreement, then a single reviewer extracted data from the remaining studies, which a second reviewer cross-checked. We critically appraised scales based on the COSMIN checklist. RESULTS: We retrieved 7290 articles, of which 52 were eligible for inclusion, including 44 deprescribing trials and eight scale development studies. From these studies, we found 21 scales that have been used in the context of deprescribing/polypharmacy (12 generic scales used in clinical trials and nine medication-specific scales). Variations of the generic EQ-5D were the most used scales. The measurement properties of scales for capturing changes in QoL from deprescribing were uncertain. Medication-specific QoL scales have not been employed in deprescribing clinical trials and thus, their performance in this context is also not clear. CONCLUSIONS: Several existing QoL scales have been applied to the context of deprescribing/polypharmacy clinical trials, and new scales specific to the problem have been proposed. If deprescribing does impact QoL, our findings suggest it is uncertain whether existing QoL scales can practically and reliably capture such a change or whether any scale is best. However, this review compares various aspects of the scales that researchers and clinicians can consider in decisions about measuring QoL in deprescribing trials, and in planning future research. PROTOCOL REGISTRATION: Open Science Framework: osf.io/aez6w.

Developing a core outcome set for evaluating medication adherence interventions for adults prescribed long-term medication in primary care.

BACKGROUND: Approximately half of people prescribed medications do not take them as prescribed. There is a significant unmet need regarding the barriers to medication adherence not being addressed in primary care. There is no agreement on which outcomes should be measured and reported in trials of medication adherence interventions. OBJECTIVE: To develop a core outcome set (COS) for trials of medication adherence interventions in primary care for adults prescribed medications for long-term health conditions. METHODS: A list of potentially relevant outcomes from the literature was developed. Using a two-round Delphi survey of stakeholder groups representing patients and their carers; primary care staff; and academic researchers with an interest in medication adherence; each outcome was scored in terms of importance for determining the effectiveness of medication adherence interventions in primary care. This was followed by two consensus workshops, where importance, as well as feasibility and acceptability of measurement, were considered in order to finalise the COS. RESULTS: One hundred and fifty people took part in Delphi Round 1 and 101 took part in Round 2. Eight people attended the workshops (four attendees per workshop). Seven outcomes were identified as most important, feasible and acceptable to collect in medication adherence trials: Health-related quality of life, number of doses taken, persistence with medicines, starting (initiating) a medicine, relevance of the medication adherence intervention for an individual, mortality, and adverse medicine events. CONCLUSIONS: This COS represents the minimum outcomes that should be collected and reported in all medication adherence trials undertaken in primary care. When developing and finalizing the COS, feasibility and acceptability of collection of outcomes has been considered. In addition to the COS, medication adherence trials can choose to include outcomes to suit their specific context such as the health condition associated with their medication adherence intervention.

Sleep disturbance in people living with dementia or mild cognitive impairment: a realist review of general practice.

BACKGROUND: Sleep disturbance is a prevalent condition among people living with dementia (PLwD) or mild cognitive impairment (MCI). Its assessment and management within primary care is complex because of the comorbidities, older age, and cognitive impairment typical of this patient group. AIM: To explore how primary care clinicians assess, understand, and manage sleep disturbance for PLwD or MCI; if and why such initiatives work; and how people and their carers experience sleep disturbance and its treatment. DESIGN AND SETTING: A realist review of existing literature conducted in 2022. METHOD: Six bibliographic databases were searched. Context-mechanism-outcome configurations (CMOCs) were developed and refined. RESULTS: In total, 60 records were included from 1869 retrieved hits and 19 CMOCs were developed. Low awareness of and confidence in the treatment of sleep disturbance among primary care clinicians and patients, combined with time and resource constraints, meant that identifying sleep disturbance was difficult and not prioritised. Medication was perceived by clinicians and patients as the primary management tool, resulting in inappropriate or long-term prescription. Rigid nursing routines in care homes were reportedly not conducive to good-quality sleep. CONCLUSION: In primary care, sleep disturbance among PLwD or MCI is not adequately addressed. Over-reliance on medication, underutilisation of non-pharmacological strategies, and inflexible care home routines were reported as a result of low confidence in sleep management and resource constraints. This does not constitute effective and person-centred care. Future work should consider ways to tailor the assessment and management of sleep disturbance to the needs of individuals and their informal carers without overstretching services.

Taxonomy development for term standardization in activity resulting from medication review processes: a Delphi study.

BACKGROUND: Medication review (MR) is the systematic assessment of a patient's medications for safety and effectiveness by a healthcare professional. The language used to describe MR activity, such as stopped medicine and increased dose, should be consistent across studies to assist researchers compare how different services operate and identify their mechanism of impact. AIM: To develop an international taxonomy of standardized terms and activity definitions related to medication reviews. METHOD: This was a three-stage Delphi-based consensus study with international medication review experts. A systematic review provided MR activity terms for the survey. Experts rated their consensus on each activity term and its definition on a Likert scale and provided written feedback. The consensus was 75% panel agreement. At each stage, consensus elements were retained, and feedback was used to revise definitions. RESULTS: Seven experts were recruited for the study (response rate 15.2%) from four countries: the United Kingdom (n = 4), New Zealand (n = 1), Australia (n = 1), and Malaysia (n = 1). The following terms achieved consensus: the term Medication as a descriptor for MR terms; discontinue medication, start medication, dose increase, dose decrease, dosage form change, and medication safety and efficacy monitor to describe MR activity; Educate to describe the delivery of healthcare professionals and patients/carers education. CONCLUSION: Standardized medication review activity terms and definitions have been selected for universal adoption in all future MR research to facilitate a meaningful comparison of process evaluations within different settings.

Improving patient experience for people prescribed medicines with a risk of dependence or withdrawal: co-designed solutions using experience based co-design.

BACKGROUND: Significant concerns have been raised regarding how medications with a risk of dependence or withdrawal are managed and how care is experienced by patients. This study sought to co-design solutions to improve the experience of care for patients prescribed benzodiazepines, z-drugs, opioids for chronic non-cancer pain, gabapentinoids and antidepressants. METHOD: Twenty patients and fifteen healthcare professionals from five different GP practices were recruited to take part. The study used Experience Based Co-Design. Patients and healthcare professionals completed semi-structured interviews and took part in feedback groups and co-design workshops to collaboratively identify priorities for improvement and to co-design solutions to improve the experience of care. RESULTS: Poor patient experience was common among people prescribed medications with a risk of dependence or withdrawal. Patients and healthcare professionals identified three main priority areas to improve the experience of care: (i) ensuring patients are provided with detailed information in relation to their medication, (ii) ensuring continuity of care for patients, and (iii) providing alternative treatment options to medication. Solutions to improve care were co-designed by patients and healthcare staff and implemented within participating GP practices to improve the experience of care. CONCLUSION: Good patient experience is a key element of quality care. This study highlights that the provision of in-depth medication related information, continuity of care and alternative treatment to medication are important to patients prescribed medicines with a risk of dependence or withdrawal. Improving these aspects of care should be a priority for future improvement and delivery plans.

Protocol of the process evaluation of cluster randomised control trial for estimating the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a complex intervention to increase care home staff influenza vaccination rates compared to usual practice (FluCare).

BACKGROUND: Influenza (flu) vaccination rates in UK care home staff are extremely low. Less than 40% of staff in care homes are vaccinated for influenza (flu), presenting risks to the health of frail residents and potential staff absence from cross-infection. Staff often do not perceive a need for vaccination and are unaware they are entitled to free flu vaccination. The FluCare study, a cluster randomised control trial (RCT), uses behavioural interventions to address barriers. Videos, posters, and leaflets are intended to raise awareness of flu vaccination benefits and debunk myths. On-site staff vaccination clinics increase accessibility. Financial incentives to care homes for improved vaccination rates and regular monitoring influence the environment. This paper outlines the planned process evaluation which will describe the intervention's mechanisms of action, explain any changes in outcomes, identify local adaptations, and inform design of the implementation phase. METHODS/DESIGN: A mixed method process evaluation to inform the interpretation of trial findings. OBJECTIVES: • Describe the intervention as delivered in terms of dose and fidelity, including adaptations and variations across care homes. • Explore the effects of individual intervention components on primary outcomes. • Investigate the mechanisms of impact. • Describe the perceived effectiveness of relevant intervention components (including videos, leaflets, posters, and flu clinics) from participant perspectives (care home manager, care home staff, flu clinic providers). • Describe the characteristics of care homes and participants to assess reach. A purposive sample of twenty care homes (ten in the intervention arm, ten in the control arm) for inclusion in the process evaluation. Data will include (1) study records including care home site profiles, (2) responses to a mechanism of action questionnaire, and (3) semi-structured interviews with care home staff and clinic providers. Quantitative data will be descriptively reported. Interview data will be thematically analysed and then categories mapped to the Theoretical Domains Framework. DISCUSSION: Adopting this systematic and comprehensive process evaluation approach will help ensure data is captured on all aspects of the trial, enabling a full understanding of the intervention implementation and RCT findings. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN ISRCTN22729870. Registered on 24 August 2022.

A systematic review of barriers and enablers associated with uptake of influenza vaccine among care home staff.

Barriers and enablers to vaccination of care home (CH) staff should be identified in order to develop interventions to address them that increase uptake and protect residents. We aimed to synthesis the evidence describing the barriers and enablers that affect the influenza vaccination uptake of care home (CH) staff. METHOD: We searched PubMed, MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, PsycINFO, AMED, IBSS, SCOPUS to identify quantitative, qualitative or mixed-method studies. Data related to health or social care workers in CHs reported barriers or enablers were extracted and mapped to the Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF); the data within each domain were grouped and categorized into key factors affecting influenza vaccine uptake among CH staff. RESULTS: We screened 4025 studies; 42 studies met our inclusion criteria. Thirty-four (81 %) were surveys. Five theoretical domains were frequently reported as mediators of influenza vaccine uptake: Beliefs about consequences (32 studies), Environmental context and resources (30 studies), Emotions (26 studies), Social influences (25 studies), Knowledge (22 studies). The low acceptance rate of the influenza vaccine among CH staff can be attributed to multiple factors, including insufficient understanding of the vaccine, its efficacy, or misconceptions about the vaccine (knowledge), perceiving the vaccine as ineffective and unsafe (beliefs about consequences), fear of influenza vaccine and its side effects (emotions), and experiencing limited accessibility to the vaccine (environmental context and resources). CONCLUSION: Interventions aimed at increasing influenza vaccine uptake among CH staff should focus on addressing the barriers identified in this review. These interventions should include components such as enhancing knowledge by providing accurate information about vaccine benefits and safety, addressing negative beliefs by challenging misconceptions, managing concerns and fears through open communication, and improving accessibility to the vaccine through convenient on-site options. This review provides a foundation for the development of tailored Interventions to improve influenza vaccine uptake among CH staff.

CompreHensive geriAtRician-led MEdication Review (CHARMER): protocol for a feasibility study of a hospital deprescribing behaviour change intervention.

INTRODUCTION: Over 50% of older adults are prescribed a medicine where the risk of harm outweighs the chances of benefit. During a hospital admission, older adults and carers expect medicines to be reviewed for appropriateness and any inappropriate medicines proactively deprescribed. While the principle of proactive deprescribing is an expectation of good prescribing practice, it is yet to become routine. The CompreHensive geriAtRician-led MEdication Review (CHARMER) study aims to develop and test a five-component behaviour change intervention to equip geriatricians and pharmacists to proactively deprescribe inappropriate medicines with older adults in hospital. This study aims to test the feasibility and acceptability of study processes and CHARMER implementation. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: A two-arm purposive allocation feasibility study is being undertaken at four acute hospitals in England, UK (three intervention and one control). The target sample is 400 patients across all hospitals. Primary outcome measures are: (1) participant recruitment rate and (2) participant attrition rate. Secondary outcome measures are: (1) hospital readmission rate; (2) mortality rate and (3) quality of life. Quantitative data will be checked for completeness and quality, and practitioner and patient demographics descriptively analysed. We will undertake a rapid qualitative analysis on observations, interviews and study meeting minutes data. A subsequent thematic analysis will be undertaken with codes mapped to the Theoretical Domains Framework and Normalisation Process Theory. Triangulation of qualitative and quantitative data will be undertaken. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethics approval was obtained from Wales Research Ethics Committee 1 (IRAS ID 312494) and study approval from the Health Research Authority (22/WA/0087). Informed consent will be sought from all hospital staff involved in data collection activities and for patients involved in enhanced data collection activities. The findings of this study will be disseminated in peer-reviewed journals and conference presentations. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN11899506.

Barriers and enablers to deprescribing for older people in care homes: The theory-based perspectives of pharmacist independent prescribers.

BACKGROUND: Over 70% of care home residents are prescribed potentially inappropriate medications (PIMs) associated with morbidity and mortality. Deprescribing is a common recommendation by pharmacists performing medication reviews in care homes, however requiring prescriber authorisation is a barrier. Care home Independent Pharmacist Prescribing Study (CHIPPS), a cluster randomised control trial integrated pharmacist independent prescriber (PIPs) into care homes to improve medication management, providing a unique opportunity to identify their barriers and enablers to deprescribing. OBJECTIVES: To identify barriers and enablers to PIPs deprescribing medications in care homes. METHODS: Secondary qualitative framework analysis was performed on interviews with CHIPPS' PIPs. A maximum variation sampling approach was used to select from the 14 PIPs included in the process evaluation to achieve diversity of PIPs' contextual factors e.g., previous experience in care homes. Transcripts were coded inductively for barriers and enablers to deprescribing and then mapped to Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF). RESULTS: Eleven PIP's interviews were sampled. Factors acted as enablers and barriers were PIP relationship with General Practitioner (GP), care home staff and residents/families, awareness of the PIP role and family trust in PIPs' deprescribing activities (social influences); PIPs' independent prescribing confidence, previous experience and ability dealing with residents' medications (beliefs about capabilities); understanding of PIP role and PIP confidence in their role as an independent prescriber (Social/professional role and identity); access to residents' records, deprescribing decision support, regular follow-up from care home staff, resident difficulties with medications, teamwork, and time restraints (Environmental context and resources). One factor acted as a barrier: believing negatives of deprescribing outweigh benefits regarding certain medications (Beliefs about consequences). CONCLUSION: PIPs' involvement in deprescribing within care homes is influenced by multiple barriers and enablers. Data mapped to TDF domains represent barriers that need addressing and enablers that should be highlighted to enhance PIPs' effectiveness in future interventions.

Understanding how primary care practitioners can be supported to recognise, screen and initially diagnose oropharyngeal dysphagia: protocol for a behavioural science realist review.

INTRODUCTION: Oropharyngeal dysphagia (OD) affects around 15% of older people; however, it is often unrecognised and underdiagnosed until patients are hospitalised. Screening is an important process which aims to facilitate proactive assessment, diagnosis and management of health conditions. Healthcare systems do not routinely screen for OD in older people, and healthcare professionals (HCPs) are largely unaware of the need to screen. This realist review aims to identify relevant literature and develop programme theories to understand what works, for whom, under what circumstances and how, to facilitate primary care HCPs to recognise, screen and initially diagnose OD. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We will follow five steps for undertaking a realist review: (1) clarify the scope, (2) literature search, (3) appraise and extract data, (4) evidence synthesis and (5) evaluation. Initial programme theories (IPTs) will be constructed after the preliminary literature search, informed by the Theoretical Domains Framework and with input from a stakeholder group. We will search Medline, Google Scholar, PubMed, EMBASE, CINAHL, AMED, Scopus and PsycINFO databases. We will obtain additional evidence through grey literature, snowball sampling, lateral searching and consulting the stakeholder group. Literature will be screened, evaluated and synthesised in Covidence. Evidence will be assessed for quality by evaluating its relevance and rigour. Data will be extracted and synthesised according to their relation to IPTs. We will follow the Realist and Meta-narrative Evidence Syntheses: Evolving Standards quality and publication standards to report study results. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Formal ethical approval is not required for this review. We will disseminate this research through publication in a peer-reviewed journal, written pieces targeted to diverse groups of HCPs on selected online platforms and public engagement events. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42022320327.

Co-design of a behaviour change intervention to equip geriatricians and pharmacists to proactively deprescribe medicines that are no longer needed or are risky to continue in hospital.

BACKGROUND: Trials of hospital deprescribing interventions have demonstrated limited changes in practitioner behaviour. Our previous research characterised four barriers and one enabler to geriatricians and pharmacists deprescribing in hospital that require addressing by a behaviour change intervention. Six behaviour change techniques (BCTs) have also been selected by the target audience using the hospital Deprescribing Implementation Framework (hDIF). This research aimed to co-design and operationalise the content, mode of delivery and duration/intensity of the six selected BCTs to develop the CompreHensive geriAtRician-led MEdication Review (CHARMER) deprescribing intervention. METHODS: We established co-design panels at three hospitals representing contextual factors likely to influence CHARMER implementation. Panels comprised geriatricians, pharmacists and other hospital staff likely to be involved in implementation. We convened two rounds of co-design workshops with each hospital to design a prototype for each BCT, which went for feedback at a final workshop attended by all three hospital panels. RESULTS: The six BCTs were co-designed into an intervention comprising:(1&2) Pharmacists' workshop with pros and cons of deprescribing activities, and videos of salient patient cases3 Regular geriatrician and pharmacist deprescribing briefings4 Videos of geriatricians navigating challenging deprescribing consultations5 Hospital deprescribing action plan6 Dashboard to benchmark deprescribing activitiesAutomated prompts to flag high-risk patients for deprescribing and a primary and secondary care deprescribing forum were proposed as additional BCTs by stakeholders. These were later excluded as they were not fidelitous to the theoretical determinants of geriatricians' and pharmacists' deprescribing behaviours. CONCLUSIONS: This study illustrates the integration of theory and co-design methodology with the target audience and staff likely to be involved in implementation of a hospital deprescribing behaviour change intervention. The development of an intervention that remains faithful to the underpinning mechanisms of action of behaviour change is a strength of this approach.

Terms used to describe and define activities undertaken as a result of the medication review process: Do they require standardisation? A systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Medication review (MR) is the systematic assessment of a patient's medications by a healthcare practitioner. It is necessary to compare such MR interventions to rationalise differences between them and assess their impact. The development of an international taxonomy for terms used to describe activities undertaken within the MR process would facilitate quality of reporting, and the comparison of different interventions. AIM: To identify overarching and individual MR activity terms and definitions reported within studies where MR was the main intervention. METHOD: A systematic review of the literature was performed using search terms for 'Intervention' and 'Outcome'. Papers with empirical data reporting and describing MR activities in English were included. The Mixed Method Appraisal Tool was used to assess research quality. Two researchers reviewed all included literature independently. Data extraction was performed using Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care to report study characteristics, and terms and definitions used to describe MR activities. RESULTS: Twenty-one papers were included: eight quantitative non-randomised trials (38%), eight randomised controlled trials (38%), and five quantitative descriptive studies (24%). Overarching interventions such as 'Clinical', 'Education' and 'Technical' were identified with no standardised definitions. Terms used to describe the medication review activities, such as stop, start and change, varied with significant potential for ambiguity. CONCLUSION: The literature reports a variety of overlapping, ambiguous and undefined MR terms. As a result, comparing process evaluations from MR interventions may be difficult. A standardised taxonomy to describe, define and report MR activities is required.

Pharmacist-independent prescriber deprescribing in UK care homes: Contextual factors associated with increased activity.

AIMS: The Care Home Independent Pharmacist Prescriber Study (CHIPPS) process evaluation hypothesized that contextual factors influenced the likelihood of deprescribing by pharmacist-independent prescribers. The aim of this paper is to test this hypothesis. METHODS: From CHIPPS study data, medications deprescribed totalled 284 for 370 residents in UK care homes. Regression analysis was used to describe the relationship between the number of medicines stopped and contextual factors (number of residents cared for, pharmacist employment within associated medical practice, previous care home experience, hours active within trial, years' experience as a pharmacist and as a prescriber). RESULTS: Number of residents and pharmacist-independent prescriber employment within a medical practice were positive predictors of deprescribing. CONCLUSION: Previous experiences were not related to deprescribing likelihood. Increasing the number of residents increases the opportunity for deprescribing and therefore this relationship is intuitive. The location within a medical practice is an interesting finding that requires further exploration to understand its exact nature.

Cluster randomised control trial protocol for estimating the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a complex intervention to increase care home staff influenza vaccination rates compared to usual practice (FLUCARE).

The care home staff influenza vaccination rate in England is significantly lower than the 75% World Health Organisation recommendation. This represents a substantial potential for resident harm. Barriers to staff vaccination stem from individual and organisational levels. Existing interventions address some but not all barriers and are not underpinned by behavioural science theory. This study aims to estimate the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a theory-informed intervention to improve care home staff vaccination rates compared to routine practice.Set in care homes with both nursing and residential focus, and a range of ownership status, only homes providing long stay care to older people with a staff vaccination rate below 40% are eligible to participate. Participation expressions of interest will be sought using a variety of approaches prior to seeking consent.The primary outcome measure is the proportion of staff vaccinated at 6 months, with secondary outcome measures being proportion vaccinated at 3 months, numbers of staff sick days, general practitioner and nurse visits to care home, care home resident hospitalisations and mortality.Based on the assumptions that the mean cluster (care home) size is 54 staff, a coefficient of variation of 0.48, control vaccination rate is 55%, intervention 75%, intra-cluster correlation coefficient of 0.2 and with 90% power, and 20% attrition, we require 39 care homes per arm.Blocked randomisation will be at the level of care home, stratified by the proportion of non-white care home staff, and implemented by Norwich Clinical Trials Unit.The intervention comprises co-designed information videos and posters, provision of in-house staff vaccination clinics, and incentive scheme and monthly data collection on trial outcomes. Beyond usual practice, the control arm will additionally contribute monthly data.Data will be collected at the start, monthly and at 6 months, and analysis will be blind to allocation. Statistical analysis will use the intention-to-treat principle with the difference in vaccination rates between groups compared using a random effect logistic regression model at the staff-level.This will be the first study to use a theory-informed intervention designed to comprehensively address identified barriers to care home staff influenza vaccination.Trial registration: ISRCTN ISRCTN22729870 . Registered on 24 August 22. Secondary identifiers: R209939, IRAS 316820, CPMS 53812.

Understanding primary care diagnosis and management of sleep disturbance for people with dementia or mild cognitive impairment: a realist review protocol.

INTRODUCTION: The increasingly ageing population is associated with greater numbers of people living with dementia (PLwD) and mild cognitive impairment (MCI). There are an estimated 55 million PLwD and approximately 6% of people over 60 years of age are living with MCI, with the figure rising to 25% for those aged between 80 and 84 years. Sleep disturbances are common for this population, but there is currently no standardised approach within UK primary care to manage this. Coined as a 'wicked design problem', sleep disturbances in this population are complex, with interventions supporting best management in context. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The aim of this realist review is to deepen our understanding of what is considered 'sleep disturbance' in PLwD or MCI within primary care. Specifically, we endeavour to better understand how sleep disturbance is assessed, diagnosed and managed. To co-produce this protocol and review, we have recruited a stakeholder group comprising individuals with lived experience of dementia or MCI, primary healthcare staff and sleep experts. This review will be conducted in line with Pawson's five stages including the development of our initial programme theory, literature searches and the refinement of theory. The Realist and Meta-narrative Evidence Syntheses: Evolving Standards (RAMESES) quality and reporting standards will also be followed. The realist review will be an iterative process and our initial realist programme theory will be tested and refined in response to our data searches and stakeholder discussions. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval is not required for this review. We will follow the RAMESES standards to ensure we produce a complete and transparent report. Our final programme theory will help us to devise a tailored sleep management tool for primary healthcare professionals, PLwD and their carers. Our dissemination strategy will include lay summaries via email and our research website, peer-reviewed publications and social media posts. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42022304679.

Developing a core outcome set for hospital deprescribing trials for older people under the care of a geriatrician.

BACKGROUND: Half of older people are prescribed unnecessary/inappropriate medications that are not routinely deprescribed in hospital hence there is a need for deprescribing trials. We aimed to develop a Core Outcome Set (COS) for deprescribing trials for older people under the care of a geriatrician during hospital admission. METHODS: We developed a list of potentially relevant outcomes from the literature. Using a two-round Delphi survey of stakeholder groups representing older people and carers, hospital clinicians, hospital managers, and ageing/deprescribing researchers, each outcome was scored according to Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation, followed by two consensus workshops to finalise the COS. RESULTS: Two hundred people completed Round 1 and 114 completed Round 2. Representing all stakeholder groups, 10 people participated in workshop 1 and 10 in workshop 2. Six outcomes were identified as most important, feasible and acceptable to collect in a trial: number of prescribed medicines stopped; number of prescribed medicines with dosage reduced; quality of life; mortality; adverse drug events and number of hospital stays. Three other outcomes were identified as important, but currently too burdensome to collect: number of potentially inappropriate medicines prescribed; burden from medication routine; and medication-related admissions to hospital. CONCLUSIONS: A COS represents the minimum outcomes that should be collected and reported. Whilst uncommon practice for COS development, the value of considering outcome collection feasibility is demonstrated by the removal of three potential outcomes that, if included, may have compromised COS uptake due to challenges with collecting the data.

Enhancing deprescribing: A qualitative understanding of the complexities of pharmacist-led deprescribing in care homes.

The English National Overprescribing Review identified that older people often take eight or more medicines a day. The report recommended pharmacists in primary care should take responsibility for addressing polypharmacy. Overprescribing is a safety concern in care homes as approximately half of older care home residents are prescribed at least one medicine that is unnecessary or now harmful. This predisposes them to adverse outcomes including hospitalisation and mortality. Deprescribing is the planned activity of stopping or reducing a medicine that may no longer be appropriate. Deprescribing, when performed by a pharmacist, is a multidisciplinary activity requiring close communication with general practitioners (GPs) and care home staff. A recently completed trial that integrated pharmacists with prescribing rights into older peoples' care homes found significant variation in proactive deprescribing activity. The aim of the current study was to specifically explore beliefs and practices of deprescribing in care homes. A qualitative approach was adopted to examine individual, social and contextual factors that acted as enablers and barriers to pharmacist deprescribing in care homes. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with participants of the previous study (16 pharmacists, 6 GPs and 7 care home staff from Northern Ireland, Scotland and England). Using thematic analysis, we identified two themes: (a) Structures and systems affecting deprescribing, that is the context in which deprescribing happened, including team involvement and routine practices in GP surgeries and care homes; (b) Balancing risks when deprescribing, that is the perception of individual risk and social barriers were mitigated by understanding the medical background of residents. This supported the clinical understanding that risks from overprescribing were greater than risks from deprescribing. While deprescribing can involve all health professionals in the primary care team, these results suggest the pharmacist is well placed to lead the process; by having both clinical competence and professional willingness to drive this activity forward.