Economic cost-benefit analysis of person-centred medicines reviews by general practice pharmacists.

BACKGROUND: Medicines reviews by general practice pharmacists improve patient outcomes, but little is known about the associated economic outcomes, particularly in patients at higher risk of medicines-related harm. AIM: To conduct an economic cost-benefit analysis of pharmacists providing person-centred medicines reviews to patients with hyperpolypharmacy (prescribed ≥ 10 regular medicines) and/or at high risk of medicines-related harm across multiple general practice settings. METHOD: Service delivery costs were calculated based on the pharmacist's salary, recorded timings, and a general practitioner fee. Direct cost savings were calculated from the cost change of patients' medicines post review, projected over 1 year. Indirect savings were calculated using two models, a population-based model for avoidance of hospital admissions due to adverse drug reactions and an intervention-based model applying a probability of adverse drug reaction avoidance. Sensitivity analyses were performed using varying workday scenarios. RESULTS: Based on 1471 patients (88.4% with hyperpolypharmacy), the cost of service delivery was €153 per review. Using the population-based model, net cost savings ranging from €198 to €288 per patient review and from €73,317 to €177,696 per annum per pharmacist were calculated. Using the intervention-based model, net cost savings of €651-€741 per review, with corresponding annual savings of €240,870-€457,197 per annum per pharmacist, were calculated. Savings ratios ranged from 181 to 584% across all models and inputs. CONCLUSION: Person-centred medicines reviews by general practice pharmacists for patients at high risk of medicines-related harm result in substantial cost savings. Wider investment in general practice pharmacists will be beneficial to minimise both patient harm and healthcare system expenditure.

Community pharmacists' awareness, identification, and management of prescribing cascades: A cross-sectional survey.

BACKGROUND: Prescribing cascades can lead to unnecessary medication use, healthcare costs, and patient harm. Pharmacists oversee prescriptions from multiple prescribers and are well positioned to identify such cascades, making pharmacists key stakeholders to address them. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate community pharmacists' awareness, identification, and management of prescribing cascades and to assess behavioural determinants that may be targeted in future strategies to minimise inappropriate prescribing cascades. METHODS: An online survey was developed using the Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF) and emailed to all registered community pharmacists in Ireland (n = 3775) in November 2021. Quantitative data were analysed using descriptive and inferential statistics. Free-text sections were given to capture reasons for non-resolution of identified prescribing cascades and suggestions to aid prescribing cascade identification and management; this text underwent content analysis. RESULTS: Of the 220 respondents, 51% were aware of the term 'prescribing cascade' before the survey, whilst 69% had identified a potentially inappropriate prescribing cascade in practice. Over one third were either slightly confident (26.4%) or not confident at all (10%) in their ability to identify potentially inappropriate prescribing cascades in patients' prescriptions before the survey, whilst 55.2% were concerned that patients were receiving prescribing cascades they had not identified. Most respondents wanted further information/training to help prescribing cascade identification (88.3%) and management (86.1%). Four predominant TDF domains identified were common to both i) influencing non-resolution of identified prescribing cascades and ii) in the suggestions to help identify and manage prescribing cascades: 'Environmental Context and Resources', 'Social/Professional Role and Identity', 'Social Influences' and 'Memory, Attention and Decision Processes'. CONCLUSIONS: There is a clear need to provide additional resources to help community pharmacists identify and manage prescribing cascades. These findings will support the development of theory-informed behaviour change strategies to aid the minimisation of inappropriate prescribing cascades and decrease the risk of medication-related harm for patients.

Exploring career choices of pharmacy graduates over 15 years: A cross-sectional evaluation.

INTRODUCTION: Career opportunities for pharmacists beyond those commonly associated with the degree continue to emerge. A paucity of literature regarding evaluation of pharmacy graduate career paths over extended periods is apparent. Considering international pharmacy workforce capacity pressures, the primary study aim was to evaluate trends in career paths of pharmacy graduates. METHODS: This study utilised a multimethod approach to access graduate career data using publicly accessible information from LinkedIn® profiles and an online survey. The survey was distributed to all pharmacy graduates of a university (2007-2022). Data from both methods was combined, cross-checked, coded and analysed quantitatively using descriptive and inferential statistics. RESULTS: Data from 69.7% of the university's pharmacy graduates was collected. Community pharmacy was the most prevalent employment sector (47.7%), followed by industry (21.5%) and hospital (17.7%). A higher proportion of more recent graduates (≤5 years post-graduation) work in a community or hospital pharmacy role versus those who graduated greater than five years ago (χ2 = 8.44, df = 2, p < 0.05). Post-graduate education was undertaken by 41.3% of graduates. Career satisfaction was high (88.2%) but was lower (χ2 = 11.31, df = 1, p < 0.05) for those in community and hospital (82%) versus other sectors (97.5%). CONCLUSION: This study provides the first analysis of graduate career paths over an extended period, highlighting a novel approach to track pharmacist workforce. While almost two thirds of pharmacy graduates occupy community or hospital roles, a trend of leaving these settings five years post-graduation was evident. Accordingly, this work represents a springboard for additional research to inform future pharmacist workforce planning worldwide.

GPs' perceptions of pharmacists working in general practices: A mixed methods survey study.

BACKGROUND: Pharmacists are increasingly incorporated into general practice teams globally and have been shown to positively impact patient outcomes. However, little research to date has focused on determining general practitioners' (GPs') perceptions of practice-based pharmacist roles in countries yet to establish such roles. OBJECTIVES: To explore GPs' perceptions towards integrating pharmacists into practices and determine if any significant associations were present between GPs' perceptions and their demographic characteristics. METHODS: In June 2022, a survey was disseminated to GPs in Ireland via post (n = 500 in Munster region), Twitter, WhatsApp, and an online GP support and education network. Quantitative data were captured through multiple option and Likert-scale questions and analysed using descriptive and inferential statistics. Qualitative data were captured via free-text boxes, with the open comments analysed using reflexive thematic analysis. RESULTS: A total of 152 valid responses were received (24.6% response to postal survey). Overall, GPs welcomed the role of practice-based pharmacists and perceived that they would increase patient safety. Most agreed with practice pharmacists providing medicine information (98%) vs. 23% agreeing with practice pharmacists prescribing independently. Most agreed they would partake in a practice pharmacist pilot (78.6%). The free-text comments described current pressures in general practice, existing relationships with pharmacists, funding and governance strategies, potential roles for pharmacists in general practice, and anticipated outcomes of such roles. CONCLUSION: This study provides a deeper understanding of GPs' perceptions of integrating pharmacists into practices and the demographic characteristics associated with different perceptions, which may help better inform future initiatives to integrate pharmacists into practices.

Exploring physician gender bias in the initiation of prescribing cascades for older men and women: a qualitative clinical vignette study protocol.

INTRODUCTION: A prescribing cascade occurs when a drug is prescribed to manage the often unrecognised side effect of another drug; these cascades are of particular concern for older adults who are at heightened risk for drug-related harm. It is unknown whether, and to what extent, gender bias influences physician decision-making in the context of prescribing cascades. The aim of this transnational study is to explore the potential impact of physician implicit gender biases on prescribing decisions that may lead to the initiation of prescribing cascades in older men and women in two countries, namely: Canada and Italy. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Male and female primary care physicians at each site will be randomised 1:1 to a case vignette that features either a male or female older patient who presents with concerns consistent with the side effect of a medication they are taking. During individual interviews, while masked to the true purpose of the study, participants will read the vignette and use the think-aloud method to describe their ongoing thought processes as they consider the patient's concerns and determine a course of action. Interviews will be recorded, transcribed verbatim and thematic analysis will be conducted to highlight differences in decisions in the interviews/transcripts, using a common analytical framework across the sites. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This study has received ethics approval at each study site. Verbal informed consent will be received from participants prior to data collection and all data will be deidentified and stored on password-protected servers. Results of this study will be disseminated through peer-reviewed journal articles and presented at relevant national and international conferences.

An observational study of the cause and frequency of prescription rework in community pharmacies.

BACKGROUND: When prescriptions are being processed in pharmacies, 'rework' is a phenomenon where an activity occurs that requires the return to a prior procedural step in the process for correction. To date, little is known regarding rework prevalence in community pharmacies or how this might be minimised. AIM: To evaluate the cause and frequency of prescription rework in community pharmacies. METHOD: A list of reworks was designed for community pharmacists to self-record prescription rework instances and causes in their workplace across a two-week period. Community pharmacists in Ireland were recruited via convenience sampling and snowballing. Descriptive statistics were used to assess rework frequency according to the various causes, as well as the pharmacist and pharmacy characteristics. RESULTS: Eight pharmacists participated, recording 325 reworks across 92.9% of the 65 study days (mean 5 reworks/day). The pharmacists' mean ranged from 1.82 to 15 reworks/day. Pharmacists and pharmacy technicians alone or together were involved in 72.3% of reworks. The three most common rework categories were involving labelling errors (22.8%), prepared prescriptions which necessitated opening and repackaging (15.1%), and medication owings to patients (13.9%). CONCLUSION: This study reveals that prescription rework occurs frequently in community pharmacies and has provided an indication of some of the main causes. These findings demonstrate areas where pharmacy staff can address rework and should aid the development of approaches to minimise rework in future - thus decreasing workload and facilitating more time for community pharmacy staff to focus on providing patient care.

General practitioners' perceptions of pharmacists working in general practice: a qualitative interview study.

INTRODUCTION: Pharmacists in general practice have been shown to enhance patient care and are becoming increasingly prevalent worldwide. Yet, little is known about general practitioners' (GPs') perceptions of pharmacists prior to potentially working alongside them in this setting. Therefore, this study aimed to investigate these GP perceptions to inform future efforts to integrate pharmacists into general practice. METHODS: Semi-structured interviews were conducted with GPs practising in the Republic of Ireland between October and December 2021. Content analysis was used to identify the most relevant Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF) domains that affected the theoretical integration of pharmacists into general practice. RESULTS: Fifteen GPs were interviewed. Five TDF domains were found to be most relevant in affecting pharmacist integration: (1) 'environmental context and resources' (space, government funding, information technology, current workplace pressures, increasing patient complexity, indemnity, moves towards group practices); (2) 'skills' (GP mentors, practical in-service training, consultation skills development); (3) 'social professional role and identity' (role definition, clinical governance, pharmacist prescribing, medication review and monitoring); (4) 'beliefs about consequences' (patient safety, cost savings, workload); and (5) 'knowledge' (pharmacists as medication experts, lack of knowledge of pharmacist undergraduate training). DISCUSSION: This is the first qualitative interview study to focus on exploring GPs' perceptions of pharmacists working in general practice outside of private practice settings. It has provided a deeper understanding of GPs' considerations regarding the integration of pharmacists into general practice. In addition to informing future research, these findings should help optimise future service design and aid pharmacist integration into general practice.

General practitioners' perceptions of pharmacists working in general practice: a qualitative interview study.

BACKGROUND: Pharmacists are being increasingly employed as part of general practice teams globally, and their input has been associated with several clinical and economic benefits. However, there is a paucity of research focussing on general practitioners' (GPs') perceptions of pharmacist integration into practices in countries where this novel role for pharmacists is yet to become commonplace. OBJECTIVE: To explore GPs' perceptions of integrating pharmacists into general practices and to identify the behavioural determinants of GPs integrating pharmacists into practices. METHODS: Semistructured interviews were conducted with GPs practising in Ireland, who were sampled using a combination of purposive, convenience, and snowball sampling. Interviews were audio-recorded and transcribed verbatim, which then were analysed using conventional content analysis and directed content analysis employing the Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF). RESULTS: Seventeen GPs were interviewed between November 2021 and February 2022. Seven TDF domains were identified as predominant in influencing GPs' perceptions of pharmacist integration into general practices. These perceptions were mostly positive, especially regarding patient outcomes, cost savings, and improving access to care. However, there were concerns about funding the role, affecting others' workloads, and pharmacists' training needs to work in practices. CONCLUSION: This study's theory-informed insight provides a deeper understanding of GPs' perceptions of pharmacists working in general practice and behaviours which can be targeted to help optimize integration. These findings should be utilized in future service development to preempt and address GPs' concerns ahead of pharmacist integration, as well as to inform the development of general practice-based pharmacist roles going forward.

This interview study focusses on, for the first time, general practitioners' (GPs') perceptions of pharmacist integration into general practices outside of a private practice setting. Pharmacists working in general practices have demonstrated several benefits for patients, GPs, practices, and for wider society. However, pharmacist roles in general practices have thus far been confined to a small number of countries; little is known about the perceptions of GPs who have not previously worked alongside a pharmacist in general practice regarding pharmacist integration in this setting. GPs interviewed in this study were broadly optimistic about aspects of pharmacists working in practices and potential outputs. However, GPs had concerns about pharmacists' impact on others' roles and workloads, funding, and training pharmacists to perform roles in this setting. This study therefore provides a useful insight into GPs' perceptions on the subject so that their views, concerns, and ideas can be anticipated and taken on board in advance of trying to integrate pharmacists into practices.

ThinkCascades: A Tool for Identifying Clinically Important Prescribing Cascades Affecting Older People.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Prescribing cascades occur when a drug is prescribed to manage side effects of another drug, typically when a side effect is misinterpreted as a new condition. A consensus list of clinically important prescribing cascades that adversely affect older persons' health (i.e., where risks of the prescribing cascade usually exceed benefits) was developed to help identify, prevent, and manage prescribing cascades. METHODS: Three rounds of a modified Delphi process were conducted with a multidisciplinary panel of 38 clinicians from six countries with expertise in geriatric pharmacotherapy. The clinical importance of 139 prescribing cascades was assessed in Round 1. Cascades highly rated by ≥ 70% of panelists were included in subsequent rounds. Factors influencing ratings in Rounds 1 and 3 were categorized. After three Delphi rounds, highly rated prescribing cascades were reviewed by the study team to determine the final list of clinically important cascades consistent with potentially inappropriate prescribing. RESULTS: After three rounds, 13 prescribing cascades were highly rated by panelists. Following a study team review, the final tool includes nine clinically important prescribing cascades consistent with potentially inappropriate prescribing. Panelists reported that their ratings were influenced by many factors (e.g., how commonly they encountered the medications involved and the cascade itself, the severity of side effects, availability of alternatives). The relative importance of these factors in determining clinical importance varied by panelist. CONCLUSIONS: A nine-item consensus-based list of clinically important prescribing cascades, representing potentially inappropriate prescribing, was developed. Panelists' decisions about what constituted a clinically important prescribing cascade were multi-factorial. This tool not only raises awareness about these cascades but will also help clinicians recognize these and other important prescribing cascades. This list contributes to the prevention and management of polypharmacy and medication-related harm in older people.

Pharmacists' views on the impact of the Falsified Medicines Directive on community pharmacies: A cross-sectional survey.

Background: The Falsified Medicines Directive (FMD) was implemented to minimise the circulation of falsified medicines in the legal pharmaceutical supply chain. Whilst pharmacists are involved in the final step of the FMD requirements with the decommissioning of medicines at the point of supply to patients, limited research has been conducted to investigate the impact of fulfilling these requirements on the relevant stakeholders. Objective: To examine community pharmacists' views on how the FMD has affected their practice. Methods: An online survey was disseminated via email in June 2020 to pharmacists in Ireland (n = 4727), who were invited to participate if practising full time or part time in community pharmacies. Quantitative data were captured through multiple option and Likert-scale questions, and analysed using descriptive and inferential statistics. Qualitative data were captured by use of a free-text box, with the open comments analysed thematically. Results: In total, 618 valid responses were received (13.1% response rate). Most perceived that FMD requirements increased waiting times for patients (82%) and reduced time interacting with patients (65%). Only 28% agreed/strongly agreed that the introduction of the FMD legislation improves patient safety. In the open comments, the need for medicine authentication was acknowledged, but it was believed that this should be the wholesalers' responsibility, not pharmacists' responsibility. The additional step of medicines decommissioning was viewed as a time-consuming distraction to clinical checks that increased the risk for error. Pharmacists complained that they were not remunerated for the lost staff productivity or the additional software and equipment costs. Many pharmacists felt that the increased workload was disproportionate to the small risk of patients receiving falsified medicines. Conclusions: Key stakeholder engagement is required to optimise the implementation and integration of the FMD procedures into community pharmacy practice with minimal impact on dispensing and without compromising patient care.

A pharmacist's unique opportunity within a multidisciplinary team to reduce drug-related problems for older adults in an intermediate care setting.

BACKGROUND: There is a paucity of research describing the pharmacist's role in the multidisciplinary care of older adults in the intermediate care setting. OBJECTIVE: To determine the types of drug-related problems (DRPs) in older patients in this setting, to evaluate the implementation rate of pharmacist recommendations and the factors affecting implementation, and to assess the clinical significance of these recommendations. METHODS: Data were collected over a 12-week period on one pharmacist's recommendations to reduce clinically relevant DRPs identified during medication reconciliation and review for all patients ≥65 years admitted to an intermediate care unit. The clinical significance of the recommendations was judged by four independent assessors using a validated tool. Statistical significance was predetermined as p < 0.05. RESULTS: Of 494 clinically relevant DRPs identified in 91 patients (mean age: 82 years), 406 recommendations were communicated to the medical team, and 89.2% were implemented. Overall, 48.5% were communicated verbally, but no difference was found between the implementation rates of verbal and written recommendations (87.8% versus 90.4%; p = 0.4). Medication reconciliation recommendations were implemented more commonly than those regarding medication review (96.5% versus 79.5%; p < 0.0001). Recommendations judged to be of 'moderate significance' (66.8% of total) were implemented more often than those of 'minor significance' (93.2% versus 81.6%; p < 0.001). The consultant was provided with a significantly higher proportion of recommendations of 'moderate significance' when compared to the junior doctor (79.6% versus 63.3%; p = 0.02), but implemented significantly fewer recommendations (69.4% versus 91.9%; p < 0.0001). CONCLUSION: The high implementation rate in this study shows the importance of pharmacist involvement to reduce DRPs in the multidisciplinary care of older adults in an intermediate care unit. Future research should focus on investigating the impact of pharmacist interventions on older patient outcomes and the associated cost-effectiveness in this setting.

General practitioners' views of pharmacist services in general practice: a qualitative evidence synthesis.

BACKGROUND: Pharmacist services in general practice are expanding worldwide, with evidence to show pharmacists' presence in general practice has financial, workload, and clinical benefits. Yet, little is known globally about general practitioners' (GPs') views on their presence in general practice. OBJECTIVE: To synthesize the qualitative research evidence on GPs' views of pharmacist services in general practice. METHODS: Qualitative evidence synthesis; 8 electronic databases were searched from inception to April 2021 for qualitative studies that reported the views of GPs regarding pharmacist services in general practice. Data from included studies were analyzed using thematic synthesis. The Confidence in the Evidence from Reviews of Qualitative research (CERQual) approach was used to assess the confidence in individual review findings. RESULTS: Nineteen studies were included, which captured the views of 159 GPs from 8 different countries. Four analytical themes describing the factors that should be considered in the development or optimization of pharmacist services in general practice, based on the views of GPs, were developed from the coded data and descriptive themes: (i) optimal environment for a pharmacist, (ii) the ideal pharmacist characteristics, (iii) complex stakeholder relationships, and (iv) benefits of an effective pharmacist. CONCLUSION: Based on the synthesis of GPs' views, we have created a conceptual model of factors that should be considered by policymakers, GPs, pharmacists, and other relevant stakeholders when developing or optimizing pharmacist services in general practice going forward.

This review presents the evidence, for the first time, on general practitioners' (GPs') views of pharmacist services in the general practice setting worldwide. Pharmacist services in general practice have the potential to yield several benefits for the practice, patient, and GPs themselves. However, to include pharmacist services in the practice is a complex process; this review gives an insight into GPs' thoughts on the matter, what works­and if so, why­and what does not work. This review will therefore prove useful to GPs, pharmacists, practice managers, policymakers, and academics wishing to establish or improve pharmacist services in the general practice environment.

Factors affecting physician implementation of hospital pharmacists' medication appropriateness recommendations in older adults.

AIMS: Non-implementation of pharmacist recommendations by physician prescribers may prolong potentially inappropriate prescribing in hospitalised older adults, increasing the risk of adverse clinical outcomes. The aim of this study was to ascertain the key factors affecting physician prescriber implementation of pharmacists' medication appropriateness recommendations in hospitalised older adults. METHODS: Semi-structured interviews were conducted with hospital pharmacists and physicians who provided care to older adults (≥65 years) in 2 acute university teaching hospitals in Ireland. Content analysis was employed to identify the key themes that influence physician prescriber implementation of pharmacist recommendations. RESULTS: Fourteen interviews were conducted with 6 hospital pharmacists and 8 hospital physicians between August 2018 and August 2019. Five key factors were found to affect physician implementation of pharmacist recommendations: (i) the clinical relevance and complexity of the recommendation-recommendations of higher priority and those that do not require complex decision-making are implemented more readily; (ii) interprofessional communication-recommendations provided verbally, particularly those communicated face to face with confidence and assertion, are more likely to be implemented than written recommendations; (iii) physician role and identity-the grade, specialty, and personality of the physician significantly affect implementation; (iv) knowing each other and developing trusting relationships-personal acquaintance and the development of interprofessional trust and rapport greatly facilitate recommendation implementation; and (v) the hospital environment-organisational issues such as documentation in the patient notes, having the opportunity to intervene, and the clinical pharmacy model all affect implementation. CONCLUSION: This study provides a deeper understanding of the underlying behavioural determinants affecting physician prescriber implementation of pharmacist recommendations and will aid in the development of theoretically-informed interventions to improve medication appropriateness in hospitalised older adults.

Prevalence of drug-drug interactions in older people before and after hospital admission: analysis from the OPERAM trial.

BACKGROUND: Drug-drug interactions (DDIs) are highly prevalent in older patients but little is known about prevalence of DDIs over time. Our main objective was to assess changes in the prevalence and characteristics of drug-drug interactions (DDIs) during a one-year period after hospital admission in older people, and associated risk factors. METHODS: We conducted a sub-study of the European OPERAM trial (OPtimising thERapy to prevent Avoidable hospital admissions in Multimorbid older people), which assessed the effects of a structured medication review (experimental arm) compared to usual care (control arm) on reducing drug-related hospital readmissions. All OPERAM patients (≥70 years, with multimorbidity and polypharmacy, hospitalized in four centers in Bern, Brussels, Cork and Utrecht between December 2016 and October 2018, followed over 1 year) who were alive at hospital discharge and had full medication data during the index hospitalization (at baseline i.e., enrolment at admission, and at discharge) were included. DDIs were assessed using an international consensus list of potentially clinically significant DDIs in older people. The point-prevalence of DDIs was evaluated at baseline, discharge, and at 2, 6 and 12 months after hospitalization. Logistic regression models were performed to assess independent variables associated with changes in DDIs 2 months after baseline. RESULTS: Of the 1950 patients (median age 79 years) included, 1045 (54%) had at least one potentially clinically significant DDI at baseline; point-prevalence rates were 58, 57, 56 and 57% at discharge, and 2, 6 and 12 months, respectively. The prevalence increased significantly from baseline to discharge (P < .001 [significant only in the control group]), then remained stable over time (P for trend .31). The five most common DDIs -all pharmacodynamic in nature- accounted for 80% of all DDIs and involved drugs that affect potassium concentrations, centrally-acting drugs and antithrombotics. At 2 months, DDIs had increased in 459 (27%) patients and decreased in 331 (19%). The main factor predictive of a change in the prevalence of DDIs was hyperpolypharmacy (≥10 medications). CONCLUSIONS: DDIs were very common; their prevalence increased during hospitalization and tended to remain stable thereafter. Medication review may help control this increase and minimize the risk of adverse drug events.

An International Consensus List of Potentially Clinically Significant Drug-Drug Interactions in Older People.

OBJECTIVES: We aimed to establish an explicit list of potentially clinically significant drug-drug interactions (DDIs) in people aged ≥65 years. DESIGN: A preliminary list of potentially clinically significant DDIs was compiled, based on 154 DDIs identified from literature review. Subsequently, a 2-round online Delphi survey was undertaken with a multidisciplinary expert panel. A consensus meeting and a final round were conducted to validate the final DDI list and the scope of information provided. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: Twenty nine experts, including geriatricians and clinical pharmacists from 8 European countries. MEASURES: For each DDI, in the first 2 rounds, experts were asked to score the severity of potential harm on a 5-point Likert-type scale. DDIs were directly included on the final list if the median score was 4 (major) or 5 (catastrophic). DDIs with a median score of 3 (moderate) were discussed at a consensus meeting and included if ≥75% of participants voted for inclusion in the final round. RESULTS: Consensus was achieved on 66 potentially clinically significant DDIs (28 had a median score of 4/5 and 48 of 3 in the Delphi survey). Most concerned cardiovascular, antithrombotic, and central nervous system drugs. The final list includes information on the mechanism of interaction, harm, and management. Treatment modification is recommended for three-quarters of DDIs. CONCLUSION AND IMPLICATIONS: We validated a list of potentially clinically significant DDIs in older people, which can be used in clinical practice and education to support identification and management of DDIs or to assess prevalence in epidemiologic and intervention studies.

Exploring pharmacists' perceptions of integrating pharmacists into the general practice setting.

Background: In several countries worldwide, pharmacists have integrated into the general practice setting. This has resulted in enhanced medication management, a reduction in patients' appointments with general practitioners (GPs), and decreased medication costs. However, there is a paucity of research that has focused on exploring pharmacists' views of this emerging role prior to its implementation in countries where it is not yet commonplace. Objective: To explore pharmacsists' perceptions of integrating pharmacists into the general practice setting, the proposed roles for such pharmacists, and the factors affecting integration. Methods: Semi-structured interviews were conducted with pharmacists in Ireland, who were sampled based on years of experience in community pharmacy and work location using convenience and snowball sampling. The interviews were audio-recorded and transcribed verbatim, which subsequently underwent thematic analysis. Results: Twelve pharmacists - with a median of six years' experience as a community pharmacist - were interviewed between September and October 2019. Four main themes were generated:(i) expectations of integrated role (including the importance of role definition, pharmacist experience, and increased job satisfaction);(ii) altered pharmacist-patient dynamic in primary care (including patient trust, patient safety, and the impact on community pharmacist roles);(iii) GP-pharmacist relationship (including pre-existing relationships, autonomy, reducing GP workload, and individual GP attributes);(iv) logistical issues and financial implications (including practice characteristics, co-location time, and supporting evidence-based implementation). Conclusion: This study is unique as it has focused solely on exploring pharmacists' perceptions of integrating into general practice in a country where such roles are mostly non-existent. The attitudes of pharmacists in this study were primarily positive, for reasons such as intrinsic motivation, reducing GP workload, and improving patient health outcomes. However, the routine implementation of these roles will require funding and support from key stakeholders (other than pharmacists) and should be guided by the evidence from other countries.

Factors Affecting Prescriber Implementation of Computer-Generated Medication Recommendations in the SENATOR Trial: A Qualitative Study.

BACKGROUND: The SENATOR trial intervention included the provision of computer-generated medication recommendations to physician prescribers caring for hospitalised older adults (≥ 65 years), with the aim of reducing in-hospital adverse drug reactions. Interim data analysis during the trial revealed that the prescriber implementation rates of the computer-generated STOPP/START recommendations were lower than expected across all six trial sites. AIM: The aim of this qualitative study was to identify the factors affecting prescriber implementation of the medication recommendations in the SENATOR trial. METHODS: Semi-structured interviews were conducted with trial researchers and physician prescribers who were provided with SENATOR recommendations. Content analysis was used to identify the most relevant domains from the Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF) that affected recommendation uptake. RESULTS: Ten trial researchers and fourteen prescribers were interviewed across the six trial sites. Eight TDF domains were found to be most relevant in affecting prescriber implementation: 'environmental context and resources', 'goals', 'intentions', 'knowledge', 'beliefs about consequences', 'memory, attention and decision processes', 'social/professional role and identity', and 'social influences'. Interviewees felt that there was often a disconnect between the time prescribers were reviewing the patient and the point at which the recommendations were provided. However, when recommendations were reviewed, prescriber inertia was highly pervasive, with a particular reluctance to make pharmacotherapy changes outside their own specialty. Implementation was facilitated by recommendations reaching a 'decision-maker', but this was often not possible as the software could not evaluate the entire clinical context of patients, and thus frequently produced recommendations of low clinical relevance. CONCLUSION: This study has demonstrated that the clinical relevance of the SENATOR prescribing recommendations was a significant factor affecting their implementation. Whilst software refinement will be necessary to improve the quality of recommendations, future interventions will need to be multifaceted to overcome the complex prescriber specialty culture within the acute hospital environment.

Prevention of adverse drug reactions in hospitalized older patients with multi-morbidity and polypharmacy: the SENATOR* randomized controlled clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: Multi-morbidity and polypharmacy increase the risk of non-trivial adverse drug reactions (ADRs) in older people during hospitalization. Despite this, there are no established interventions for hospital-acquired ADR prevention. METHODS: We undertook a pragmatic, multi-national, parallel arm prospective randomized open-label, blinded endpoint (PROBE) controlled trial enrolling patients at six European medical centres. We randomized 1,537 older medical and surgical patients with multi-morbidity and polypharmacy on admission in a 1:1 ratio to SENATOR software-guided medication optimization plus standard care (intervention, n = 772, mean number of daily medications = 9.34) or standard care alone (control, n = 765, mean number of daily medications = 9.23) using block randomization stratified by site and admission type. Attending clinicians in the intervention arm received SENATOR-generated advice at a single time point with recommendations they could choose to adopt or not. The primary endpoint was occurrence of probable or certain ADRs within 14 days of randomization. Secondary endpoints were primary endpoint derivatives; tertiary endpoints included all-cause mortality, re-hospitalization, composite healthcare utilization and health-related quality of life. RESULTS: For the primary endpoint, there was no difference between the intervention and control groups (24.5 vs. 24.8%; OR 0.98; 95% CI 0.77-1.24; P = 0.88). Similarly, with secondary and tertiary endpoints, there were no significant differences. Among attending clinicians in the intervention group, implementation of SENATOR software-generated medication advice points was poor (~15%). CONCLUSIONS: In this trial, uptake of software-generated medication advice to minimize ADRs was poor and did not reduce ADR incidence during index hospitalization.

Computer-generated STOPP/START recommendations for hospitalised older adults: evaluation of the relationship between clinical relevance and rate of implementation in the SENATOR trial.

BACKGROUND: findings from a recent qualitative study indicate that the perceived clinical relevance of computer-generated STOPP/START recommendations was a key factor affecting their implementation by physician prescribers caring for hospitalised older adults in the SENATOR trial. AIM: to systematically evaluate the clinical relevance of these recommendations and to establish if clinical relevance significantly affected the implementation rate. METHODS: a pharmacist-physician pair retrospectively reviewed the case records for all SENATOR trial intervention patients at Cork University Hospital and assigned a degree of clinical relevance for each STOPP/START recommendation based on a previously validated six-point scale. The chi-square test was used to quantify the differences in prescriber implementation rates between recommendations of varying clinical relevance, with statistical significance set at P < 0.05. RESULTS: in 204 intervention patients, the SENATOR software produced 925 STOPP/START recommendations. Nearly three quarters of recommendations were judged to be clinically relevant (73.6%); however, nearly half of these were deemed of 'possibly low relevance' (320/681; 47%). Recommendations deemed of higher clinical relevance were significantly more likely to be implemented than those of lower clinical relevance (P < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: a large proportion (61%) of the computer-generated STOPP/START recommendations provided were of potential 'adverse significance', of 'no clinical relevance' or of 'possibly low relevance'. The adjudicated clinical relevance of computer-generated medication recommendations significantly affects their implementation. Meticulous software refinement is required for future interventions of this type to increase the proportion of recommendations that are of high clinical relevance. This should facilitate their implementation, resulting in prescribing optimisation and improved clinical outcomes for multimorbid older adults.