Informational continuity of medication management in transitions of care: Qualitative interviews with stakeholders from the HYPERION-TransCare study.

BACKGROUND: The transition of patients between inpatient and outpatient care can lead to adverse events and medication-related problems due to medication and communication errors, such as medication discontinuation, the frequency of (re-)hospitalizations, and increased morbidity and mortality. Older patients with multimorbidity and polypharmacy are particularly at high risk during transitions of care. Previous research highlighted the need for interventions to improve transitions of care in order to support information continuity, coordination, and communication. The HYPERION-TransCare project aims to improve the continuity of medication management for older patients during transitions of care. METHODS AND FINDINGS: Using a qualitative design, 32 expert interviews were conducted to explore the perspectives of key stakeholders, which included healthcare professionals, patients and one informal caregiver, on transitions of care. Interviews were conducted between October 2020 and January 2021, transcribed verbatim and analyzed using content analysis. We narratively summarized four main topics (stakeholders' tasks, challenges, ideas for solutions and best practice examples, and patient-related factors) and mapped them in a patient journey map. Lacking or incomplete information on patients' medication and health conditions, inappropriate communication and collaboration between healthcare providers within and across settings, and insufficient digital support limit the continuity of medication management. CONCLUSIONS: The study confirms that medication management during transitions of care is a complex process that can be compromised by a variety of factors. Legal requirements and standardized processes are urgently needed to ensure adequate exchange of information and organization of medication management before, during and after hospital admissions. Despite the numerous barriers identified, the findings indicate that involved healthcare professionals from both the inpatient and outpatient care settings have a common understanding.

How do middle-aged patients and their healthcare providers manage multimorbidity? Results of a qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: It is particularly difficult for healthcare providers to deliver optimal medical care to multimorbid middle-aged persons because patients' professional activities, family lives, and other everyday responsibilities hinder them from making necessary lifestyle changes. Our aim was to find out how patients and healthcare providers view and manage the problems of dealing with multimorbidity in middle age. METHODS AND FINDINGS: This qualitative study consisted of three steps. First, we conducted semi-structured in-depth interviews with 15 purposively sampled middle-aged persons living with multimorbidity to explore the experiences of care in the context of their leisure time, family lives, and work. Second, further individual interviews were carried out to find out the views of 14 healthcare providers. Third, the results of the interviews with patients and healthcare providers were presented to and discussed with four healthcare providers at an interprofessional workshop. Interview data was coded using an inductive-deductive approach and analyzed using content analysis. While patients reflected on challenges in several life domains, healthcare providers differentiated between levels of challenges. Both shared recommendations for better care including i) helping patients cope, ii) providing relief in activities of daily living, iii) continuity of care, iv) interprofessional cooperation, v) health promotion/prevention, vi) expansion of health services and vii) general system-level changes. Furthermore, the healthcare provider workshop highlighted the importance of increasing patient-centeredness, reducing complexity through a care coordinator and promoting interprofessional cooperation/networking. CONCLUSIONS: To further improve the care of patients living with multimorbidity, barriers to managing multiple chronic conditions and facilitators to navigating complex care scenarios should be explored not only for people beyond working age, but for individuals in their mid-life specifically.

Amitriptyline's anticholinergic adverse drug reactions-A systematic multiple-indication review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Half the US population uses drugs with anticholinergic properties. Their potential harms may outweigh their benefits. Amitriptyline is among the most frequently prescribed anticholinergic medicinal products, is used for multiple indications, and rated as strongly anticholinergic. Our objective was to explore and quantify (anticholinergic) adverse drug reactions (ADRs) in patients taking amitriptyline vs. placebo in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) involving adults and healthy individuals. METHODS: We searched electronic databases from their inception until 09/2022, and clinical trial registries from their inception until 09/2022. We also performed manual reference searches. Two independent reviewers selected RCTs with ≥100 participants of ≥18 years, that compared amitriptyline (taken orally) versus placebo for all indications. No language restrictions were applied. One reviewer extracted study data, ADRs, and assessed study quality, which two others verified. The primary outcome was frequency of anticholinergic ADRs as a binary outcome (absolute number of patients with/without anticholinergic ADRs) in amitriptyline vs. placebo groups. RESULTS: Twenty-three RCTs (mean dosage 5mg to 300mg amitriptyline/day) and 4217 patients (mean age 40.3 years) were included. The most frequently reported anticholinergic ADRs were dry mouth, drowsiness, somnolence, sedation, fatigue, constitutional, and unspecific anticholinergic ADRs. Random-effects meta-analyses showed anticholinergic ADRs had a higher odd's ratio for amitriptyline versus placebo (OR = 7.41; [95% CI, 4.54 to 12.12]). Non-anticholinergic ADRs were as frequent for amitriptyline as placebo. Meta-regression analysis showed anticholinergic ADRs were not dose-dependent. DISCUSSION: The large OR in our analysis shows that ADRs indicative of anticholinergic activities can be attributed to amitriptyline. The low average age of participants in our study may limit the generalizability of the frequency of anticholinergic ADRs in older patients. A lack of dose-dependency may reflect limited reporting of the daily dosage when the ADRs occurred. The exclusion of small studies (<100 participants) decreased heterogeneity between studies, but may also have reduced our ability to detect rare events. Future studies should focus on older people, as they are more susceptible to anticholinergic ADRs. REGISTRATION: PROSPERO: CRD42020111970.

Anticholinergic burden measures, symptoms, and fall-associated risk in older adults with polypharmacy: Development and validation of a prognostic model.

BACKGROUND: Anticholinergic burden has been associated with adverse outcomes such as falls. To date, no gold standard measure has been identified to assess anticholinergic burden, and no conclusion has been drawn on which of the different measure algorithms best predicts falls in older patients from general practice. This study compared the ability of five measures of anticholinergic burden to predict falls. To account for patients' individual susceptibility to medications, the added predictive value of typical anticholinergic symptoms was further quantified in this context. METHODS AND FINDINGS: To predict falls, models were developed and validated based on logistic regression models created using data from two German cluster-randomized controlled trials. The outcome was defined as "≥ 1 fall" vs. "no fall" within a 6-month follow-up period. Data from the RIME study (n = 1,197) were used in model development, and from PRIMUM (n = 502) for external validation. The models were developed step-wise in order to quantify the predictive ability of anticholinergic burden measures, and anticholinergic symptoms. In the development set, 1,015 patients had complete data and 188 (18.5%) experienced ≥ 1 fall within the 6-month follow-up period. The overall predictive value of the five anticholinergic measures was limited, with neither the employed anticholinergic variable (binary / count / burden), nor dose-dependent or dose-independent measures differing significantly in their ability to predict falls. The highest c-statistic was obtained using the German Anticholinergic Burden Score (0.73), whereby the optimism-corrected c-statistic was 0.71 after interval validation using bootstrapping and 0.63 in the external validation. Previous falls and dizziness / vertigo had the strongest prognostic value in all models. CONCLUSIONS: The ability of anticholinergic burden measures to predict falls does not appear to differ significantly, and the added value they contribute to risk classification in fall-prediction models is limited. Previous falls and dizziness / vertigo contributed most to model performance.

Digital participatory workshops with patients and health professionals to develop an intervention for the management of polypharmacy: results from a mixed-methods evaluation and methodological conclusions.

BACKGROUND: In the COVID-19 pandemic, numerous researchers postponed their patient and public involvement (PPI) activities. This was mainly due to assumptions on patients' willingness and skills to participate digitally. In fact, digital PPI workshops differ from in-person meetings as some forms of non-verbal cues and body language may be missing and technical barriers may exist. Within our project HYPERION-TransCare we adapted our PPI workshop series for intervention development to a digital format and assessed whether these digital workshops were feasible for patients, health care professionals and researchers. METHODS: We used a digital meeting tool that included communication via audio, video and chat. Discussions were documented simultaneously on a digital white board. Technical support was provided via phone and chat during the workshops and with a technical introduction workshop in advance. The workshop evaluation encompassed observation protocols, participants' feedback via chat after each workshop on their chance to speak and the usability of the digital tools, and telephone interviews on patients' and health professionals' experiences after the end of the workshop series. RESULTS: Observation protocols showed an active role of moderators in verbally encouraging every participant to get involved. Technical challenges occurred, but were in most cases immediately addressed and solved. Participants median rating of their chance to speak and the usability of the digital tool was "very good". In the evaluation interviews participants reported a change of perspective and mutual understanding as a main benefit from the PPI workshops and described the atmosphere as inclusive and on equal footing. Benefits of the digital format such as overcoming geographical distance, saving time and combining workshop participation with professional or childcare obligations were reported. Technical support was stressed as a pre-condition for getting actively involved in digital PPI. CONCLUSIONS: Digital formats using different didactic and documentation techniques, accompanied by technical support, can foster active patient and public involvement. The advantages of digital PPI formats such as geographical flexibility and saving time for participants as well as the opportunity to prepare and hold workshops in geographically stretched research teams persists beyond the pandemic and may in some cases outweigh the advantages of in-person communication.

Digital patient and public involvement (PPI) activities differ from in-person meetings. For example, some forms of non-verbal cues and body language are limited and technical barriers may exist. Therefore, some research teams were hesitant to switch to a digital PPI format during the COVID-19 pandemic and postponed their PPI activities.In this paper, we aim to describe, how we adapted a PPI workshop series to a digital format, how patients and health care professionals experienced these digital workshops, and which conclusions we have drawn for future digital PPI activities. The workshop evaluation encompassed workshop observation protocols, participants' feedback via chat on their chance to speak and the feasibility of the digital tools, and telephone interviews on participants' experiences.The study results showed that moderators had an active role in verbally encouraging every participant to get involved. Technical challenges occurred, but were in most cases immediately addressed and solved. Most participants rated their chance to speak and the feasibility of the digital format as "very good". They described the atmosphere as inclusive and on equal footing without hierarchy between different stakeholder groups. Participants reported benefits of the digital format such as overcoming geographical distance, saving time and combining workshop participation with professional or childcare obligations. They stressed technical support as a condition for getting actively involved in digital PPI.We conclude that some advantages of digital PPI may persist beyond the pandemic. Therefore, we encourage research teams to discuss the question of digital or in-person PPI with the involved patients and health professionals and decide on a case-by-case basis.

Stakeholder Perspectives on the Development and Implementation of a Polypharmacy Management Program in Germany: Results of a Qualitative Study.

Structured management programs have been developed for single diseases but rarely for patients with multiple medications. We conducted a qualitative study to investigate the views of stakeholders on the development and implementation of a polypharmacy management program in Germany. Overall, we interviewed ten experts in the fields of health policy and clinical practice. Using content analysis, we identified inclusion criteria for the selection of suitable patients, the individual elements that should make up such a program, healthcare providers and stakeholders that should be involved, and factors that may support or hinder the program's implementation. All stakeholders were well aware of polypharmacy-related risks and challenges, as well as the urgent need for change. Intervention strategies should address all levels of care and include all concerned patients, caregivers, healthcare providers and stakeholders, and involved parties should agree on a joint approach.

Development of an intervention to improve informational continuity of care in older patients with polypharmacy at the interface between general practice and hospital care: protocol for a participatory qualitative study in Germany.

INTRODUCTION: Older patients with multimorbidity, polypharmacy and related complex care needs represent a growing proportion of the population and a challenge for healthcare systems. Particularly in transitional care (hospital admission and hospital discharge), medical errors, inappropriate treatment, patient concerns and lack of confidence in healthcare are major problems that may arise from a lack of information continuity. The aim of this study is to develop an intervention to improve informational continuity of care at the interface between general practice and hospital care. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: A qualitative approach will be used to develop our participatory intervention. Overall, 32 semistructured interviews with relevant stakeholders will be conducted and analysed. The stakeholders will include healthcare professionals from the outpatient setting (general practitioners, healthcare assistants, ambulatory care nurses) and the inpatient setting (clinical doctors, nurses, pharmacists, clinical information scientists) as well as patients and informal caregivers. At a series of workshops based on the results of the stakeholder analyses, we aim to develop a participatory intervention that will then be implemented in a subsequent pilot study. The same stakeholder groups will be invited for participation in the workshops. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval for this study was waived by the Ethics Committee of Goethe University Frankfurt because of the nature of the proposed study. Written informed consent will be obtained from all study participants prior to participation. Results will be tested in a pilot study and disseminated at (inter)national conferences and via publication in peer-reviewed journals. TRIAL REGISTATION NUMBER: Clinical Trials Register: registration number DRKS00027649.

Evidence-Based Decision Support for a Structured Care Program on Polypharmacy in Multimorbidity: A Guideline Upgrade Based on a Realist Synthesis.

Evidence-based clinical guidelines generally consider single conditions, and rarely multimorbidity. We developed an evidence-based guideline for a structured care program to manage polypharmacy in multimorbidity by using a realist synthesis to update the German polypharmacy guideline including the following five methods: formal prioritization in focus groups; systematic guideline review of evidence-based multimorbidity/polypharmacy guidelines; evidence search/synthesis and recommendation development; multidisciplinary consent of recommendations; feasibility test of updated guideline. We identified the need for a better description of the target group, decision support, prioritization of medication, consideration of patient preferences and anticholinergic properties, and of healthcare interfaces. We conducted a systematic guideline review of eight guidelines and extracted and synthesized recommendations using the Ariadne principles. We also included 48 systematic reviews. We formulated and agreed upon 34 recommendations for the revised guideline. During the feasibility test, guideline use enabled 57% of GPs to identify problems, leading to medication changes in 49% and self-assessed improvement in 56% of patients. Although 58% of GPs felt that it was too long, 92% recommended it. Polypharmacy should be systematically reviewed at least annually. Patients, family members, and healthcare professionals should monitor and adjust it using prospective process validation, taking into account patient preferences and agreed treatment goals.

Patient Safety and the COVID-19 Pandemic in Germany: A Repeated Population-Based Cross-Sectional Survey.

The coronavirus (COVID-19) has presented Germany with major challenges and has led to concerns about patient safety. We conducted an observational, population-based, nationwide, repeated cross-sectional survey on patient safety in Germany in 2019, 2020, and 2021. Each of the three samples consisted of 1000 randomly recruited adults. Self-reported data via computer-assisted telephone interviews were taken from TK Monitor of Patient Safety. Perceptions, experience, and knowledge relating to patient safety were assessed. The majority of respondents considered medical treatment to involve risks to patient safety. This proportion decreased during the pandemic. The majority also had a high degree of self-efficacy regarding the prevention of medical errors, whereby the percentage that felt well informed with regard to patient safety rose throughout the pandemic. The proportion of persons that suspected they had in the past experienced an error in their treatment remained steady at one third as well as the reported errors. In 2020, 65% of respondents thought health communication with service providers (e.g., extent and comprehensibility of information) remained unchanged during the pandemic, while 35% reported that medical appointments had been cancelled or postponed. This study is the first to assess patient safety from a general population perspective during the coronavirus pandemic in Germany. COVID-19 had a positive impact on perceived patient safety but no impact on suspected and reported errors. Self-efficacy with regard to medical error prevention steadily increased in the general population, and people considered themselves well informed.

Everyday lives of middle-aged persons living with multimorbidity: protocol of a mixed-methods systematic review.

INTRODUCTION: Multimorbidity is the simultaneous occurrence of several (chronic) diseases. Persons living with multimorbidity not only have complex care needs, but the burden of care often has a negative impact on their family lives, leisure time and professional activities. The aim of this project is to systematically review the literature to assess how multimorbidity affects the everyday lives of middle-aged persons, and to find out what abilities and resources help in the development of coping strategies to overcome the challenges of living with it. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We will systematically search for studies reporting on the everyday life experiences of middle-aged persons (30-60 years) with multimorbidity (≥2 chronic conditions) in MEDLINE, CINAHL, PsycINFO, Social Sciences Citation Index, Social Sciences Citation Index Expanded, PSYNDEX and The Cochrane Library from inception. We will include all primary studies that use quantitative, qualitative and mixed methodologies, irrespective of publication date/study setting.Two independent reviewers will screen titles/abstracts/full texts, extract data from the selected studies and present evidence in terms of study/population characteristics, data collection method and the phenomenon of interest, that is, everyday life experiences of middle-aged persons with multimorbidity. Risk of bias will be independently assessed by two reviewers using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool. We will use a convergent integrated approach on qualitative/quantitative studies, whereby information will be synthesised narratively and, if possible, quantitatively. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval is not required due to the nature of the proposed systematic review. Results from this research will be disseminated at relevant (inter)national conferences and via publication in peer-reviewed journals. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42021226699.

"A real eye opener" - development, implementation and evaluation of a seminar on interprofessional teamwork in GP specialty training.

Introduction: The successful treatment of a multitude of chronic diseases is largely dependent on effective interprofessional collaboration. In Germany, many healthcare employees feel unprepared for the challenges of interprofessional teamwork. Can a seminar designed by an interprofessional team for an interprofessional target group improve mutual understanding and provide the basis for successful interprofessional collaboration? Methodological approach: For the development of the seminar, Kern's model for curriculum development was used, which includes the following six steps: problem identification, needs analysis, goal definition (learning objectives and learning content), educational strategies, implementation and evaluation. The all-day event brought together physiotherapists, pharmacists, medical assistants and doctors undergoing specialist training in family medicine. Representatives of the various professions were recruited through multiple channels (associations, pharmacist societies, alumni-networks, etc.). Practical examples and role-play were used to develop a better understanding of each other's professions and to support goal-oriented and appreciative communication among them. The seminar belongs to the curriculum provided by the Hesse Competence Center for Specialist Training in General Practice and has so far taken place three times. The evaluation was carried out by means of a detailed, self-designed questionnaire with five open and 20 closed questions. The statistical analysis was mainly descriptive (mean value, minimum, maximum and SD). Results: Overall, 29 persons have participated in the workshops (eleven doctors undergoing specialist training, six physiotherapists, six pharmacists, six medical assistants). Overall, the seminar was rated very highly. Individual aspects of the seminar's design, such as relevance and practice-orientation, as well as an assessment of whether the seminar contributed towards increasing participants' ability to collaborate with other professionals, were rated positively. In addition, a pre-post comparison of self-assessed ability to collaborate interprofessionally showed significant improvement. Discussion: This highly interactive one-day seminar design contributed towards improving understanding for other professions and communication skills. In order to achieve a broad-based improvement in interprofessional collaboration over the long term, this or similar concepts should be employed more extensively. Conclusions: The results suggest that participants in interprofessional seminars consider them to improve interprofessional collaboration.

Everyday Lives of Middle-Aged Persons with Multimorbidity: A Mixed Methods Systematic Review.

The healthcare burden of patients with multimorbidity may negatively affect their family lives, leisure time and professional activities. This mixed methods systematic review synthesizes studies to assess how multimorbidity affects the everyday lives of middle-aged persons, and identifies skills and resources that may help them overcome that burden. Two independent reviewers screened title/abstracts/full texts in seven databases, extracted data and used the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT) to assess risk of bias (RoB). We synthesized findings from 44 studies (49,519 patients) narratively and, where possible, quantitatively. Over half the studies provided insufficient information to assess representativeness or response bias. Two studies assessed global functioning, 15 examined physical functioning, 18 psychosocial functioning and 28 work functioning. Nineteen studies explored skills and resources that help people cope with multimorbidity. Middle-aged persons with multimorbidity have greater impairment in global, physical and psychosocial functioning, as well as lower employment rates and work productivity, than those without. Certain skills and resources help them cope with their everyday lives. To provide holistic and dynamic health care plans that meet the needs of middle-aged persons, health professionals need greater understanding of the experience of coping with multimorbidity and the associated healthcare burden.

End-of-life care preferences of older patients with multimorbidity: protocol of a mixed-methods systematic review.

INTRODUCTION: End-of-life care is an essential task performed by most healthcare providers and often involves decision-making about how and where patients want to receive care. To provide decision support to healthcare professionals and patients in this difficult situation, we will systematically review a knowledge cluster of the end-of-life care preferences of older patients with multimorbidity that we previously identified using an evidence map. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We will systematically search for studies reporting end-of-life care preferences of older patients (mean age ≥60) with multimorbidity (≥2 chronic conditions) in MEDLINE, CINAHL, PsycINFO, Social Sciences Citation Index, Social Sciences Citation Index Expanded, PSYNDEX and The Cochrane Library from inception to September 2019. We will include all primary studies that use quantitative, qualitative and mixed methodologies, irrespective of publication date and language.Two independent reviewers will assess eligibility, extract data and describe evidence in terms of study/population characteristics, preference assessment method and end-of-life care elements that matter to patients (eg, life-sustaining treatments). Risk of bias/applicability of results will be independently assessed by two reviewers using the Mixed-Methods Appraisal Tool. Using a convergent integrated approach on qualitative/quantitative studies, we will synthesise information narratively and, wherever possible, quantitatively. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Due to the nature of the proposed systematic review, ethics approval is not required. Results from our research will be disseminated at relevant (inter-)national conferences and via publication in peer-reviewed journals. Synthesising evidence on end-of-life care preferences of older patients with multimorbidity will improve shared decision-making and satisfaction in this final period of life. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42020151862.

Adverse drug reactions associated with amitriptyline - protocol for a systematic multiple-indication review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Unwanted anticholinergic effects are both underestimated and frequently overlooked. Failure to identify adverse drug reactions (ADRs) can lead to prescribing cascades and the unnecessary use of over-the-counter products. The objective of this systematic review and meta-analysis is to explore and quantify the frequency and severity of ADRs associated with amitriptyline vs. placebo in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) involving adults with any indication, as well as healthy individuals. METHODS: A systematic search in six electronic databases, forward/backward searches, manual searches, and searches for Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and European Medicines Agency (EMA) approval studies, will be performed. Placebo-controlled RCTs evaluating amitriptyline in any dosage, regardless of indication and without restrictions on the time and language of publication, will be included, as will healthy individuals. Studies of topical amitriptyline, combination therapies, or including < 100 participants, will be excluded. Two investigators will screen the studies independently, assess methodological quality, and extract data on design, population, intervention, and outcomes ((non-)anticholinergic ADRs, e.g., symptoms, test results, and adverse drug events (ADEs) such as falls). The primary outcome will be the frequency of anticholinergic ADRs as a binary outcome (absolute number of patients with/without anticholinergic ADRs) in amitriptyline vs. placebo groups. Anticholinergic ADRs will be defined by an experienced clinical pharmacologist, based on literature and data from Martindale: The Complete Drug Reference. Secondary outcomes will be frequency and severity of (non-)anticholinergic ADRs and ADEs. The information will be synthesized in meta-analyses and narratives. We intend to assess heterogeneity using meta-regression (for indication, outcome, and time points) and I2 statistics. Binary outcomes will be expressed as odds ratios, and continuous outcomes as standardized mean differences. Effect measures will be provided using 95% confidence intervals. We plan sensitivity analyses to assess methodological quality, outcome reporting etc., and subgroup analyses on age, dosage, and duration of treatment. DISCUSSION: We will quantify the frequency of anticholinergic and other ADRs/ADEs in adults taking amitriptyline for any indication by comparing rates for amitriptyline vs. placebo, hence, preventing bias from disease symptoms and nocebo effects. As no standardized instrument exists to measure it, our overall estimate of anticholinergic ADRs may have limitations. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: Submitted to PROSPERO; assignment is in progress.

End-of-Life Care Preferences of Older Patients with Multimorbidity: A Mixed Methods Systematic Review.

Unpredictable disease trajectories make early clarification of end-of-life (EoL) care preferences in older patients with multimorbidity advisable. This mixed methods systematic review synthesizes studies and assesses such preferences. Two independent reviewers screened title/abstracts/full texts in seven databases, extracted data and used the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool to assess risk of bias (RoB). We synthesized findings from 22 studies (3243 patients) narratively and, where possible, quantitatively. Nineteen studies assessed willingness to receive life-sustaining treatments (LSTs), six, the preferred place of care, and eight, preferences regarding shared decision-making processes. When unspecified, 21% of patients in four studies preferred any LST option. In three studies, fewer patients chose LST when faced with death and deteriorating health, and more when treatment promised life extension. In 13 studies, 67% and 48% of patients respectively were willing to receive cardiopulmonary resuscitation and mechanical ventilation, but willingness decreased with deteriorating health. Further, 52% of patients from three studies wished to die at home. Seven studies showed that unless incapacitated, most patients prefer to decide on their EoL care themselves. High non-response rates meant RoB was high in most studies. Knowledge of EoL care preferences of older patients with multimorbidity increases the chance such care will be provided.

Are Anticholinergic Symptoms a Risk Factor for Falls in Older General Practice Patients With Polypharmacy? Study Protocol for the Development and Validation of a Prognostic Model.

Background: Cumulative anticholinergic exposure, also known as anticholinergic burden, is associated with a variety of adverse outcomes. However, studies show that anticholinergic effects tend to be underestimated by prescribers, and anticholinergics are the most frequently prescribed potentially inappropriate medication in older patients. The grading systems and drugs included in existing scales to quantify anticholinergic burden differ considerably and do not adequately account for patients' susceptibility to medications. Furthermore, their ability to link anticholinergic burden with adverse outcomes such as falls is unclear. This study aims to develop a prognostic model that predicts falls in older general practice patients, to assess the performance of several anticholinergic burden scales, and to quantify the added predictive value of anticholinergic symptoms in this context. Methods: Data from two cluster-randomized controlled trials investigating medication optimization in older general practice patients in Germany will be used. One trial (RIME, n = 1,197) will be used for the model development and the other trial (PRIMUM, n = 502) will be used to externally validate the model. A priori, candidate predictors will be selected based on a literature search, predictor availability, and clinical reasoning. Candidate predictors will include socio-demographics (e.g. age, sex), morbidity (e.g. single conditions), medication (e.g. polypharmacy, anticholinergic burden as defined by scales), and well-being (e.g. quality of life, physical function). A prognostic model including sociodemographic and lifestyle-related factors, as well as variables on morbidity, medication, health status, and well-being, will be developed, whereby the prognostic value of extending the model to include additional patient-reported symptoms will be also assessed. Logistic regression will be used for the binary outcome, which will be defined as "no falls" vs. "≥1 fall" within six months of baseline, as reported in patient interviews. Discussion: As the ability of different anticholinergic burden scales to predict falls in older patients is unclear, this study may provide insights into their relative importance as well as into the overall contribution of anticholinergic symptoms and other patient characteristics. The results may support general practitioners in their clinical decision-making and in prescribing fewer medications with anticholinergic properties.

Health-related preferences of older patients with multimorbidity: an evidence map.

OBJECTIVES: To systematically identify knowledge clusters and research gaps in the health-related preferences of older patients with multimorbidity by mapping current evidence. DESIGN: Evidence map (systematic review variant). DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, PSYNDEX, CINAHL and Science Citation Index/Social Science Citation Index/-Expanded from inception to April 2018. STUDY SELECTION: Studies reporting primary research on health-related preferences of older patients (mean age ≥60 years) with multimorbidity (≥2 chronic/acute conditions). DATA EXTRACTION: Two independent reviewers assessed studies for eligibility, extracted data and clustered the studies using MAXQDA-18 content analysis software. RESULTS: The 152 included studies (62% from North America, 28% from Europe) comprised 57 093 patients overall (range 9-9105). All used an observational design except for one interventional study: 63 (41%) were qualitative (59 cross-sectional, 4 longitudinal), 85 (57%) quantitative (63 cross-sectional, 22 longitudinal) and 3 (2%) used mixed methods. The setting was specialised care in 85 (56%) and primary care in 54 (36%) studies. We identified seven clusters of studies on preferences: end-of-life care (n=51, 34%), self-management (n=34, 22%), treatment (n=32, 21%), involvement in shared decision making (n=25, 17%), health outcome prioritisation/goal setting (n=19, 13%), healthcare service (n=12, 8%) and screening/diagnostic testing (n=1, 1%). Terminology (eg, preferences, views and perspectives) and concepts (eg, trade-offs, decision regret, goal setting) used to describe health-related preferences varied substantially between studies. CONCLUSION: Our study provides the first evidence map on the preferences of older patients with multimorbidity. Included studies were mostly conducted in developed countries and covered a broad range of issues. Evidence on patient preferences concerning decision-making on screening and diagnostic testing was scarce. Differences in employed terminology, decision-making components and concepts, as well as the sparsity of intervention studies, are challenges for future research into evidence-based decision support seeking to elicit the preferences of older patients with multimorbidity and help them construct preferences. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: Open Science Framework (OSF): DOI 10.17605/OSF.IO/MCRWQ.