'I think we could probably do more': an interview study to explore community pharmacists' experiences and perspectives of frailty and optimising medicines use in frail older adults.

BACKGROUND: Community pharmacists potentially have an important role to play in identification of frailty and delivery of interventions to optimise medicines use for frail older adults. However, little is known about their knowledge or views about this role. AIM: To explore community pharmacists' knowledge of frailty and assessment, experiences and contact with frail older adults, and perceptions of their role in optimising medicines use for this population. METHODS: Semi-structured interviews conducted between March and December 2020 with 15 community pharmacists in Northern Ireland. Interviews were transcribed verbatim and analysed thematically. RESULTS: Three broad themes were generated from the data. The first, 'awareness and understanding of frailty', highlighted gaps in community pharmacists' knowledge regarding presentation and identification of frailty and their reluctance to broach potentially challenging conversations with frail older patients. Within the second theme, 'problem-solving and supporting medication use', community pharmacists felt a large part of their role was to resolve medicines-related issues for frail older adults through collaboration with other primary healthcare professionals but feedback on the outcome was often not provided upon issue resolution. The third theme, 'seizing opportunities in primary care to enhance pharmaceutical care provision for frail older adults', identified areas for further development of the community pharmacist role. CONCLUSIONS: This study has provided an understanding of the views and experiences of community pharmacists about frailty. Community pharmacists' knowledge deficits about frailty must be addressed and their communication skills enhanced so they may confidently initiate conversations about frailty and medicines use with older adults.

Carers' experiences and perspectives of the use of anticholinergic medications in people living with dementia: Analysis of an online discussion forum.

INTRODUCTION: There is concern about the use of anticholinergic medications in people living with dementia (PLWD). Such medicines may increase cognitive decline and may be associated with higher mortality in PLWD who take these medicines. The aim of this study was to analyse data from an online dementia discussion forum to explore the experiences and perspectives of PLWD and carers about the use of anticholinergic medicines in this population. METHODS: Following receipt of ethical approval, archived discussions (posts) from Dementia Talking Point, a fully public online forum for anyone affected by dementia, created and maintained by the Alzheimer's Society, were searched from the date of inception to January 2022 using a range of search terms including commonly used anticholinergic medicines. Posts, including any of the search terms, were assessed for relevance and analysed using inductive thematic analysis. RESULTS: Five hundred and fifty unique posts were analysed, all of which had been provided by carers, with no posts attributed to PLWD. The themes that encompassed carers' experiences were (1) motivators of prescribing, (2) perspectives on the process of prescribing and (3) the outcomes of prescribing. The dominant motivator of prescribing was the management of noncognitive symptoms, pre- and postdiagnosis of dementia. Carers' perspectives on the process of prescribing were informed by an assessment of the risk-benefit of starting a medication and shared decision-making between the carer and healthcare professional to a greater or lesser degree. The outcomes of prescribing were observing the effects of the medicines, which in turn influenced whether prescribing was reviewed and continued unchanged, continued but amended, reinitiated if the medicine had been previously stopped or discontinued (the process of deprescribing). CONCLUSION: This study has provided unique insights into carers' experiences and perspectives about the use of anticholinergic medications in PLWD, highlighting how commonly these medications are prescribed for PLWD and carers' concerns about their use. There is a clear need for carers and PLWD to receive information about these medicines and healthcare professionals to consider how to optimise the use of these medicines to avoid adverse effects. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: This work was informed by findings from previous research studies focusing on optimising medicine use for people with dementia in primary care, in which interviews were conducted with PLWD, their carers and primary healthcare professionals. Although not strictly patient and public involvement, we utilised the feedback provided by key stakeholders to inform the research questions and aim/objectives of this study.

Potentially inappropriate prescribing for people with dementia in ambulatory care: a cross-sectional observational study.

BACKGROUND: Studies have shown that potentially inappropriate prescribing (PIP) is highly prevalent among people with dementia (PwD) and linked to negative outcomes, such as hospitalisation and mortality. However, there are limited data on prescribing appropriateness for PwD in Saudi Arabia. Therefore, we aimed to estimate the prevalence of PIP and investigate associations between PIP and other patient characteristics among PwD in an ambulatory care setting. METHODS: A cross-sectional, retrospective analysis was conducted at a tertiary hospital in Saudi Arabia. Patients who were ≥ 65 years old, had dementia, and visited ambulatory care clinics between 01/01/2019 and 31/12/2021 were included. Prescribing appropriateness was evaluated by applying the Screening Tool of Older Persons Potentially Inappropriate Prescriptions (STOPP) criteria. Descriptive analyses were used to describe the study population. Prevalence of PIP and the prevalence per each STOPP criterion were calculated as a percentage of all eligible patients. Logistic regression analysis was used to investigate associations between PIP, polypharmacy, age and sex; odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated. Analyses were conducted using SPSS v27. RESULTS: A total of 287 PwD were identified; 56.0% (n = 161) were female. The mean number of medications prescribed was 9.0 [standard deviation (SD) ± 4.2]. The prevalence of PIP was 61.0% (n = 175). Common instances of PIP were drugs prescribed beyond the recommended duration (n = 90, 31.4%), drugs prescribed without an evidence-based clinical indication (n = 78, 27.2%), proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) for > 8 weeks (n = 75, 26.0%), and acetylcholinesterase inhibitors with concurrent drugs that reduce heart rate (n = 60, 21.0%). Polypharmacy was observed in 82.6% (n = 237) of patients and was strongly associated with PIP (adjusted OR 24.1, 95% CI 9.0-64.5). CONCLUSIONS: Findings have revealed a high prevalence of PIP among PwD in Saudi Arabia that is strongly associated with polypharmacy. Future research should aim to explore key stakeholders' experiences and perspectives of medicines management to optimise medication use for this vulnerable patient population.

Improving medication dispensing and counselling for patients with vision impairment: a qualitative study of pharmacist-reported barriers and facilitators.

BACKGROUND: People with vision impairment encounter many difficulties when it comes to medicines use. However, evidence indicates that there are major gaps in pharmaceutical care service provision worldwide and limited research on interventions to optimise medication use for this patient population. The Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF) provides a method for theoretically understanding individuals' behaviour and informing development of interventions. The aim of this research was to (a) identify the barriers and facilitators to the provision of medication dispensing and counselling services by pharmacists to patients with vision impairment, and (b) identify key TDF domains to be targeted in a future intervention. METHODS: Semi-structured interviews were conducted with pharmacists from different pharmacy practice settings/areas in Saudi Arabia. The 14-domain TDF was utilised as the theoretical lens through which pharmacists' behaviours were examined. Interviews were conducted in Arabic or English, either face-to-face or over the telephone based on the participant's preference. Following transcription, interviews conducted in Arabic were translated into English before analysis. Data analysis involved using the framework method and content analysis to identify important barriers and facilitators to the provision of dispensing and counselling services to those with vision impairment. Key TDF domains that could be targeted in a future intervention were then identified using a consensus-based approach. RESULTS: Twenty-six pharmacists were interviewed. Pharmacists' experience in pharmacy practice ranged from two to 28 years. A range of barriers and facilitators were highlighted as important in providing services to those with vision impairment. Eight domains were identified as 'key domains' including: 'Knowledge', 'Skills', 'Beliefs about capabilities', 'Goals', 'Memory, attention, and decision processes', 'Environmental context and resources', 'Social influences', and 'Behavioural regulation'. CONCLUSIONS: Barriers and facilitators identified by pharmacists will inform the development of an intervention to ensure its applicability to everyday practice. Future research will focus on the process of developing the proposed intervention through targeting key TDF domains to improve medication dispensing and counselling by pharmacists to patients with vision impairment.

Evaluation of a dementia awareness game for health professions students in Northern Ireland: a pre-/post-test study.

BACKGROUND: Dementia is a prevalent global health issue, necessitating comprehensive education for healthcare practitioners and students. Nursing and pharmacy students, provide support across healthcare settings often working as frontline caregivers. Therefore, it is imperative to equip these students with a profound understanding of dementia. The aim of this study was to evaluate whether a serious dementia game co-designed with stakeholders, students, and people living with dementia improved the attitudes of nursing and pharmacy students. METHODS: A pretest-posttest design was used to assess the attitudes of health professions students (nursing and pharmacy) towards dementia. The Approaches to Dementia Questionnaire (ADQ) was administered before and after playing a serious Dementia Game. The ADQ measured the total score, Hope subscale, and Recognition of Personhood subscale. Matched pairs t-test was used for analysis conducted with IBM SPSS statistics 27. RESULTS: A diverse cohort of 505 participants from one university in Northern Ireland participated, with 461 matched pairs used for analysis. Both nursing and pharmacy students demonstrated a significant increase in overall dementia attitudes post-gameplay, with nursing students showing an increase from 79.69 to 83.59 and pharmacy students from 75.55 to 79.86. Subscales for Hope (Nursing = 28.77 to 31.22, Pharmacy = 26.65 to 29.20). and Recognition of Personhood also exhibited significant improvement (Nursing = 50.93 to 52.38, Pharmacy = 48.89 to 50.67). Demographic data revealed predominantly female participants, a lack of personal connections to dementia, and varied training experiences. DISCUSSION: The study highlights the efficacy of the serious Dementia Game in enhancing attitudes to dementia amongst health professions students, indicating its potential as an educational tool. The study contributes to the growing body of evidence supporting serious games and gamification in healthcare education.

Digital education about delirium for health care professional students: a mixed methods systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Competence in delirium care begins with pre-registration education for health care professionals. Although a common complication for hospitalised patients, delirium is avoidable and reversible. Delirium requires early recognition in person-centred care. Students need to learn how to identify and effectively care for 'at risk' patients. AIM: To identify and examine literature on how pre-registration health care professional students are prepared to recognise, assess, and deliver interventions to prevent delirium in practice, using digital/web based educational interventions. METHOD: Mixed methods systematic review with narrative synthesis. A protocol was registered with PROSPERO. The review questions and search strategy were guided by the Population, Phenomena of Interest, Context (PICo) framework. The PRISMA framework guided the screening, data extraction and analysis. Database searches (MEDLINE, Web of Science, Embase, CINAHL, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, PsycINFO & Scopus) were undertaken in April 2023 for publications from 2012 to 2023. Covidence software [30] was used to extract and manage the data. Quality appraisal was guided by the Crowe Critical Appraisal Tool (CCAT) [31]. FINDINGS: Ten papers were included: mixed methods (2), qualitative (1) and quantitative (7). Medical students were the most studied group (n = 5), followed by student nurses (n = 4) and mixed nursing and medical students (n = 1). Length of learning experience varied from 12 min virtual reality (VR) to a two-week 'geriatrics' elective. Learning was enhanced by player autonomy, engagement, safety, applicability, choices, multiple perspectives and moral reasoning opportunities. DISCUSSION: Digital programmes should be visually appealing, interactive with opportunities for practice and timely appropriate feedback.

Co-design and mixed methods evaluation of an interdisciplinary digital resource for undergraduate health profession students to improve the prevention, recognition, and management of delirium in Ireland: a study protocol.

BACKGROUND: Delirium is a common symptom of acute illness which is potentially avoidable with early recognition and intervention. Despite being a growing concern globally, delirium remains underdiagnosed and poorly reported, with limited understanding of effective delirium education for undergraduate health profession students. Digital resources could be an effective approach to improving professional knowledge of delirium, but studies utilising these with more than one profession are limited, and no evidence-based, interdisciplinary, digital delirium education resources are reported. This study aims to co-design and evaluate a digital resource for undergraduate health profession students across the island of Ireland to improve their ability to prevent, recognise, and manage delirium alongside interdisciplinary colleagues. METHODS: Utilising a logic model, three workstreams have been identified. Workstream 1 will comprise three phases: (1) a systematic review identifying the format, methods, and content of existing digital delirium education interventions for health profession students, and their effect on knowledge, self-efficacy, and behavioural change; (2) focus groups with health profession students to determine awareness and experiences of delirium care; and (3) a Delphi survey informed by findings from the systematic review, focus groups, and input from the research team and expert reference group to identify resource priorities. Workstream 2 will involve the co-design of the digital resource through workshops (n = 4) with key stakeholders, including health profession students, professionals, and individuals with lived experience of delirium. Lastly, Workstream 3 will involve a mixed methods evaluation of the digital resource. Outcomes include changes to delirium knowledge and self-efficacy towards delirium care, and health profession students experience of using the resource. DISCUSSION: Given the dearth of interdisciplinary educational resources on delirium for health profession students, a co-designed, interprofessional, digital education resource will be well-positioned to shape undergraduate delirium education. This research may enhance delirium education and the self-efficacy of future health professionals in providing delirium care, thereby improving practice and patients' experiences and outcomes. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Not applicable.

Interventions to improve the appropriate use of polypharmacy for older people.

BACKGROUND: Inappropriate polypharmacy is a particular concern in older people and is associated with negative health outcomes. Choosing the best interventions to improve appropriate polypharmacy is a priority, so that many medicines may be used to achieve better clinical outcomes for patients. This is the third update of this Cochrane Review. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of interventions, alone or in combination, in improving the appropriate use of polypharmacy and reducing medication-related problems in older people. SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL and two trials registers up until 13 January 2021, together with handsearching of reference lists to identify additional studies. We ran updated searches in February 2023 and have added potentially eligible studies to 'Characteristics of studies awaiting classification'. SELECTION CRITERIA: For this update, we included randomised trials only. Eligible studies described interventions affecting prescribing aimed at improving appropriate polypharmacy (four or more medicines) in people aged 65 years and older, which used a validated tool to assess prescribing appropriateness. These tools can be classified as either implicit tools (judgement-based/based on expert professional judgement) or explicit tools (criterion-based, comprising lists of drugs to be avoided in older people). DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Four review authors independently reviewed abstracts of eligible studies, and two authors extracted data and assessed the risk of bias of the included studies. We pooled study-specific estimates, and used a random-effects model to yield summary estimates of effect and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We assessed the overall certainty of evidence for each outcome using the GRADE approach. MAIN RESULTS: We identified 38 studies, which includes an additional 10 in this update. The included studies consisted of 24 randomised trials and 14 cluster-randomised trials. Thirty-six studies examined complex, multi-faceted interventions of pharmaceutical care (i.e. the responsible provision of medicines to improve patients' outcomes), in a variety of settings. Interventions were delivered by healthcare professionals such as general physicians, pharmacists, nurses and geriatricians, and most were conducted in high-income countries. Assessments using the Cochrane risk of bias tool found that there was a high and/or unclear risk of bias across a number of domains. Based on the GRADE approach, the overall certainty of evidence for each pooled outcome ranged from low to very low. It is uncertain whether pharmaceutical care improves medication appropriateness (as measured by an implicit tool) (mean difference (MD) -5.66, 95% confidence interval (CI) -9.26 to -2.06; I2 = 97%; 8 studies, 947 participants; very low-certainty evidence). It is uncertain whether pharmaceutical care reduces the number of potentially inappropriate medications (PIMs) (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.19, 95% CI -0.34 to -0.05; I2 = 67%; 9 studies, 2404 participants; very low-certainty evidence). It is uncertain whether pharmaceutical care reduces the proportion of patients with one or more PIM (risk ratio (RR) 0.81, 95% CI 0.68 to 0.98; I2 = 84%; 13 studies, 4534 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Pharmaceutical care may slightly reduce the number of potential prescribing omissions (PPOs) (SMD -0.48, 95% CI -1.05 to 0.09; I2 = 92%; 3 studies, 691 participants; low-certainty evidence), however it must be noted that this effect estimate is based on only three studies, which had serious limitations in terms of risk of bias. Likewise, it is uncertain whether pharmaceutical care reduces the proportion of patients with one or more PPO (RR 0.50, 95% CI 0.27 to 0.91; I2 = 95%; 7 studies, 2765 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Pharmaceutical care may make little or no difference to hospital admissions (data not pooled; 14 studies, 4797 participants; low-certainty evidence). Pharmaceutical care may make little or no difference to quality of life (data not pooled; 16 studies, 7458 participants; low-certainty evidence). Medication-related problems were reported in 10 studies (6740 participants) using different terms (e.g. adverse drug reactions, drug-drug interactions). No consistent intervention effect on medication-related problems was noted across studies. This also applied to studies examining adherence to medication (nine studies, 3848 participants). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: It is unclear whether interventions to improve appropriate polypharmacy resulted in clinically significant improvement. Since the last update of this review in 2018, there appears to have been an increase in the number of studies seeking to address potential prescribing omissions and more interventions being delivered by multidisciplinary teams.

A systematic review of interventions to reduce anticholinergic burden in older people with dementia in primary care.

OBJECTIVE: This systematic review aimed to assess the types and effectiveness of interventions that sought to reduce anticholinergic burden (ACB) in people with dementia (PwD) in primary care. METHODS: One trial registry and eight electronic databases were systematically searched to identify eligible English language studies from inception until December 2021. To be eligible for inclusion, studies had to be randomised controlled trials (RCTs) or non-randomised studies (NRS), including controlled before-and-after studies and interrupted time-series studies, of interventions to reduce ACB in PwD aged ≥65 years (either community-dwelling or care home residents). All outcomes were to be considered. Quality was to be assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool for RCTs and ROBINS-I tool for NRS. If data could not be pooled for meta-analysis, a narrative synthesis was to be conducted. RESULTS: In total, 1880 records were found, with 1594 records remaining after removal of duplicates. Following title/abstract screening, 13 full-text articles were assessed for eligibility. None of these studies met the inclusion criteria for this review. Reasons for exclusion were incorrect study design, ineligible study population, lack of focus on reducing ACB, and studies conducted outside the primary care setting. CONCLUSIONS: This 'empty' systematic review highlights the lack of interventions to reduce ACB in PwD within primary care, despite this being highlighted as a priority area for research in recent clinical guidance. Future research should focus on development and testing of interventions to reduce ACB in this patient population through high-quality clinical trials.

'I just take them because I know the people that give them to me': A theory-informed interview study of community-dwelling people with dementia and carers' perspectives of medicines management.

OBJECTIVE: Identify facilitators and barriers to successful medicines management for people with dementia (PwD) in primary care from the perspectives of community-dwelling PwD and carers. METHODS: Semi-structured interviews conducted with PwD and carers in Northern Ireland. The 14-domain Theoretical Domains Framework guided data collection and analysis. Interviews explored participants' experiences and perceptions of medicines management. PwD also completed the Beliefs about Medicines Questionnaire indicating their level of agreement with statements about medicines. Qualitative data were analysed using the framework method and content analysis. Quantitative data were analysed descriptively. RESULTS: Eighteen PwD and 15 carers were interviewed. PwD believed they were competent with medicines management ('beliefs about capabilities'). Most PwD reported having strategies to prompt them to take their medicines ('memory, attention and decision processes'). Carers played an important role in supporting PwD with medicines management ('social influences') and monitoring adherence ('behavioural regulation') and anticipated having to take on a greater role as patients' cognitive impairment worsened ('beliefs about consequences'). Participants highlighted assistance provided by community pharmacies with medicines acquisition and delivery ('environmental context and resources') and placed great trust in primary healthcare professionals ('social influences'). PwD had positive attitudes towards medication and believed strongly in the necessity of their medicines. CONCLUSIONS: This is the first study to use a theoretical approach to explore medicines management for community-dwelling PwD. The findings provide new insights into the critical role of carers in facilitating optimal medicines management and will inform future intervention development, in which carers' needs assessment and involvement will be key.

A systematic review of general practice-based pharmacists' services to optimize medicines management in older people with multimorbidity and polypharmacy.

BACKGROUND: Few studies have evaluated roles of general practice-based pharmacists (PBPs), particularly in optimizing medicines management for older people with both multimorbidity and polypharmacy. OBJECTIVE: To explore the types and effectiveness of services provided by PBPs, either alone or in collaboration with other primary health care professionals, that sought to optimize medicines management for older people with multimorbidity and polypharmacy. METHODS: Eight electronic databases and three trial registries were searched for studies published in English until April 2020. Inclusion criteria were randomized controlled trials, non-randomized controlled trials and controlled before-and-after studies of services delivered by PBPs in primary care/general practice, for patients aged ≥65 years with both multimorbidity and polypharmacy that focused on a number of outcomes. The Cochrane risk of bias tool for randomized trials (RoB 1) and the Risk of Bias in Non-randomized Studies-of Interventions (ROBINS-I) assessment tool were used for quality assessment. A narrative synthesis was conducted due to study heterogeneity. RESULTS: Seven studies met inclusion criteria. All included studies employed PBP-led medication review accompanied by recommendations agreed and implemented by general practitioners. Other patient-level and practice-level interventions were described in one study. The limited available evidence suggested that PBPs, in collaboration with other practice team members, had mixed effects on outcomes focused on optimizing medicines management for older people. Most included studies were of poor quality and data to estimate the risk of bias were often missing. CONCLUSION: Future high-quality studies are needed to test the effects of PBP interventions on a well-defined range of medicines management-related outcomes.

Optimizing medicines use for older people (aged ≥ 65 years) with multimorbidity (the presence of two or more long-term conditions) and polypharmacy (the concomitant use of four or more medicines) is urgent due to an ageing population which commonly has complex medications regimens. It is anticipated that pharmacists who have been integrated into general practices [also called practice-based pharmacists (PBPs)] will positively impact on patient outcomes through various roles and activities. As the role of PBPs is relatively new, little is known about the exact nature of their role and how these pharmacists will optimize medicines management for older people in a patient-centred manner. The aim of this research was to provide a detailed understanding of how PBPs may enhance optimization of medication management in older people and to study the effects of PBPs' interventions on outcomes-focused on optimizing medicines management for older people with multimorbidity and polypharmacy such as quality of life. The seven included studies indicated that PBP-led interventions such as medication reviews improved a number of outcomes but had either a limited effect or no effect on other outcomes. Further high-quality research is needed in this area.

Improving medicines management for people with dementia in primary care: a qualitative study of healthcare professionals to develop a theory-informed intervention.

BACKGROUND: People with dementia (PwD) face unique challenges with medicines management, yet little is known about these challenges from the perspectives of primary healthcare professionals, particularly general practitioners (GPs) and community pharmacists. Few medicines management interventions have been developed which are aimed at community-dwelling PwD. This study sought to develop an intervention to improve medicines management for PwD in primary care using a theory-informed approach. METHODS: Semi-structured interviews were conducted with GPs (n = 15) and community pharmacists (n = 15) to explore participants' views and experiences of medicines management for PwD, and their perceptions of barriers and facilitators to successful medicines management for PwD. The 14-domain Theoretical Domains Framework was the underpinning theoretical guide, allowing key theoretical domains to be identified and mapped to behaviour change techniques (BCTs) which are considered the 'active ingredients' of an intervention. Draft interventions were developed to operationalise selected BCTs and were presented to GPs and community pharmacists during task groups. Final selection of an intervention for feasibility testing was guided by feedback provided during these task groups and through application of the APEASE (Affordability, Practicability, Effectiveness/cost-effectiveness, Acceptability, Side-effects/safety, Equity) criteria. RESULTS: Participants expressed a number of concerns about medicines management for PwD, particularly monitoring adherence to medication regimens and conducting medication review. Two draft interventions comprising selected BCTs ('Modelling or demonstration of behaviour'; 'Salience of consequences'; 'Health consequences'; 'Social and environmental consequences'; 'Action planning'; Social support or encouragement', 'Self-monitoring of behaviour') were developed, each targeting GPs and community pharmacists. Following the task groups and discussions within the research team, the community pharmacy-based intervention was selected for future feasibility testing. The intervention will target community pharmacists to conduct a medication review (incorporating an adherence check) with a PwD, delivered as an online video demonstrating key behaviours. The video will include feedback emphasising positive outcomes of performing the behaviours. Action planning and a quick reference guide will be used as complementary intervention components. CONCLUSIONS: A community pharmacist-based intervention has been developed targeting medicines management for PwD in primary care using a systematic, theory-informed approach. Future work will determine the usability and acceptability of implementing this intervention in clinical practice.

The development of a Core Outcome Set for medicines management interventions for people with dementia in primary care.

BACKGROUND: people with dementia (PWD), and their carers, face challenges with medicines management activities. As interventions to support medicines management for PWD are developed, consideration must be given to the outcomes chosen to measure their effectiveness. A Core Outcome Set (COS) is a minimum set of outcomes to be measured in all trials in a particular clinical area, which seeks to reduce heterogeneity of outcome reporting across trials. OBJECTIVE: to develop a COS for trials assessing the effectiveness of medicines management interventions for PWD in primary care. METHODS: a comprehensive list of outcomes was compiled through a systematic review and semi-structured interviews with PWD (n = 18), their carers (n = 15), community pharmacists (n = 15) and general practitioners (n = 15). These outcomes were rated by a Delphi panel (n = 52) on a nine-point Likert scale from 1 (limited importance) to 9 (critical) during three sequential rounds of questionnaire distribution. The Delphi panel comprised participants with expertise in dementia and medicines management, including academics and healthcare professionals. An outcome was eligible for inclusion in the COS if ≥70% of participants rated it critical and <15% of participants rated it of limited importance. RESULTS: twenty-nine outcomes identified from the systematic review and stakeholder interviews were presented to the Delphi panel. Consensus was reached on 21 outcomes, of which the 7 most highly rated were recommended for inclusion in the COS. CONCLUSION: this study used robust methodology to develop a COS for medicines management interventions for PWD. Future work should identify the most appropriate tools to measure these outcomes.

Pain in care home residents with dementia: an exploration of frequency, prescribing and relatives' perspectives.

OBJECTIVES: This study aims to determine pain frequency amongst care home residents with dementia, to investigate variables associated with pain, to explore analgesic use among residents and to seek residents' relatives' views on provision of care and management of pain by the care home. METHODS: Structured face-to-face interviews were conducted with residents, nursing staff and relatives from nine dementia care homes in Northern Ireland, between May 2010 and March 2012. Demographic information was collected from participants, neuropsychiatric tests were used to assess residents' cognitive functioning, medication use was determined from care home records and residents' pain was assessed using a verbal descriptor scale. Relatives' views were sought on care provision and management of pain. RESULTS: Forty-two residents, 16 nurses/care assistants and 35 relatives participated; the participation rate of residents was low (27.6%). Most residents were suffering moderate-severe dementia, and some residents (26.2%) were unable to provide a self-report of pain. A significantly higher proportion of relatives (57.1%) deemed residents to be experiencing pain at the time of the interview, compared with residents (23.8%, p = 0.005) and nurses/care assistants (42.9%, p = 0.035). Most residents (88.1%) were prescribed with analgesia; non-opioid analgesics were most commonly prescribed. High proportions of residents were prescribed with psychoactive medications. Antipsychotic drug use was associated with presence of pain (p = 0.046). CONCLUSIONS: This study has reinforced the challenge of assessing and managing pain in this resident population and highlighted issues to be addressed by long-term care providers and clinicians. Participation of people with dementia, and their families, in healthcare research needs to be improved.

Any versus long-term prescribing of high risk medications in older people using 2012 Beers Criteria: results from three cross-sectional samples of primary care records for 2003/4, 2007/8 and 2011/12.

BACKGROUND: High risk medications are commonly prescribed to older US patients. Currently, less is known about high risk medication prescribing in other Western Countries, including the UK. We measured trends and correlates of high risk medication prescribing in a subset of the older UK population (community/institutionalized) to inform harm minimization efforts. METHODS: Three cross-sectional samples from primary care electronic clinical records (UK Clinical Practice Research Datalink, CPRD) in fiscal years 2003/04, 2007/08 and 2011/12 were taken. This yielded a sample of 13,900 people aged 65 years or over from 504 UK general practices. High risk medications were defined by 2012 Beers Criteria adapted for the UK. Using descriptive statistical methods and regression modelling, prevalence of 'any' (drugs prescribed at least once per year) and 'long-term' (drugs prescribed all quarters of year) high risk medication prescribing and correlates were determined. RESULTS: While polypharmacy rates have risen sharply, high risk medication prevalence has remained stable across a decade. A third of older (65+) people are exposed to high risk medications, but only half of the total prevalence was long-term (any = 38.4 % [95 % CI: 36.3, 40.5]; long-term = 17.4 % [15.9, 19.9] in 2011/12). Long-term but not any high risk medication exposure was associated with older ages (85 years or over). Women and people with higher polypharmacy burden were at greater risk of exposure; lower socio-economic status was not associated. Ten drugs/drug classes accounted for most of high risk medication prescribing in 2011/12. CONCLUSIONS: High risk medication prescribing has not increased over time against a background of increasing polypharmacy in the UK. Half of patients receiving high risk medications do so for less than a year. Reducing or optimising the use of a limited number of drugs could dramatically reduce high risk medications in older people. Further research is needed to investigate why the oldest old and women are at greater risk. Interventions to reduce high risk medications may need to target shorter and long-term use separately.

Selection of outcome measurement instruments for a core outcome set for trials aimed at improving appropriate polypharmacy in older people in primary care: a Delphi consensus study.

BACKGROUND: Despite developing a polypharmacy core outcome set (COS) in primary care, it is not clear how these outcomes should be measured. AIM: To select outcome measurement instruments (OMIs) for a COS targeting appropriate polypharmacy in older patients in primary care. METHOD: Following the Consensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement Instruments (COSMIN) guideline, OMIs were identified from a Cochrane review focusing on appropriate polypharmacy. The quality of OMIs was assessed using a published checklist. Subsequently, two rounds of Delphi questionnaires were conducted via the SoGoSurvey® platform, engaging stakeholders (researchers, clinicians and journal editors specialising in geriatric primary care) to achieve consensus on OMIs using a scale encompassing "agree", "disagree", or "unsure". Consensus was achieved if 70% or more participants chose "agree" and 15% or fewer chose "disagree." RESULTS: The quality of 20 OMIs identified from the Cochrane review was evaluated. Seven OMIs were selected based on meeting the COSMIN guideline's minimum requirements. Out of 188 potential participants, 57 (30.3%) consented to participate. Rounds 1 and 2 of Delphi exercises were completed by 50 respondents, achieving agreement on three OMIs: 'number of serious adverse drug reactions (ADRs)' (98%), 'number of deaths' (76%), and 'number of patients who fell' (70%) for measuring 'serious ADRs,' 'mortality,' and 'falls,' respectively. No agreement was reached for 'medication appropriateness,' 'medication side-effects,' 'quality of life,' and 'medication regimen complexity.' CONCLUSION: OMIs were selected for a limited number of outcomes in the polypharmacy COS. Future research should identify suitable OMIs for the remaining four outcomes.

An exploration of Northern Ireland general practice pharmacists' views on their role in general practice: a cross-sectional survey.

BACKGROUND: There is limited research examining the views of general practice pharmacists (GPPs) on their role and their impact in general practice. The aim of this study was to explore GPPs' views regarding this role and its potential impact within general practice in Northern Ireland (NI). METHODS: A paper-based self-administered questionnaire was mailed to 319 general practices in NI in 2022, directed to the GPP who spent most time at the practice. A variety of closed and open questions were included in six sections. Responses to closed questions were analysed descriptively whilst open question responses were analysed using content analysis. To ascertain associations between variables (e.g. GPP prescribing status, working arrangements and aspects of collaboration with GPPs), Fisher's exact test was employed with an a priori significance level of p < 0.05. RESULTS: 155 responses were received equating to a response rate of 48.5%. Most participants (72.3%) were female, independent prescribers (71%), and 64.5% were currently using their independent prescriber qualification. Services that were provided by most GPPs were medication reconciliation (99.4%) and medication reviews (97.4%). The most common method of communication between GPPs and general practitioners (GPs) was face-to-face (89.0%). Telephone was the most common method of communication between GPPs, community pharmacists (97.4%) and patients (98.7%). Most GPPs (> 80%) showed positive attitudes towards collaboration with GPs and those who worked in multiple practices were more likely to agree with the Attitudes Towards Collaboration Instrument for pharmacists (ATCI-P) statements compared to those who worked in a single practice (p < 0.05). Less than 40% (36.8%) of GPPs agreed that patients were aware of the role they provided. The majority of GPPs (80.6%) expressed positive views on their impact on primary care. Analysis of the free-text comments revealed the need for more GPP patient-facing activities, GPP-specific training, and promotion of the GPP role. CONCLUSION: The findings indicated that GPPs had largely positive views about their role and their impact on primary care. The results may be helpful for practices and service commissioners. Further research is necessary to explore the perspectives of patients regarding the role of the GPP and to enhance patients' awareness of the GPP.

Stakeholders' perspectives about challenges, strategies and outcomes of importance associated with adherence to appropriate polypharmacy in older patients - A qualitative study.

Background: Older patients experience challenges when taking polypharmacy. Studies have applied different interventions to improve adherence to polypharmacy. However, inconsistencies in outcomes have impeded the synthesis of evidence. To generate high-quality studies and selectively report outcomes, a Core Outcome Set (COS) is advocated. Objectives: This study explored stakeholders' perspectives about the challenges older patients face when taking polypharmacy, strategies to overcome each challenge, and outcomes of importance that may contribute to COS development. Methods: Semi-structured interviews were undertaken with academics, healthcare professionals, and public participants. A series of open-ended questions investigated challenges with adherence to polypharmacy in older patients and strategies to overcome these challenges. A list of outcomes (n = 7) compiled from previous studies associated with adherence to polypharmacy was presented to participants for their views. Content analysis was conducted to identify key themes and outcomes proposed by participants. Results: Participants suggested 11 multidimensional healthcare system-related, medication-related, patient-related, and socioeconomic-related challenges and 16 educational and behavioural strategies associated with adherence to polypharmacy in older patients. Participants agreed with the importance of the seven outcomes presented and suggested a further six outcomes they deemed to be important for use in trials aimed at improving adherence to appropriate polypharmacy in older patients. Conclusions: Adherence to polypharmacy was deemed challenging, requiring supportive interventions. A list of 13 outcomes in the context of adherence to appropriate polypharmacy in older patients was identified to inform a future study that will develop a COS for clinical trials targeting interventions to improve adherence to appropriate polypharmacy in older patients.

Evaluating the Risk-Benefit Profile of Corticosteroid Therapy for COVID-19 Patients: A Scoping Review.

BACKGROUND: The 2019 coronavirus (COVID-19) outbreak was declared a global pandemic in March 2020. It quickly spread across all continents, causing significant social, environmental, health, and economic impacts. During the pandemic, there has been consideration of repurposing and repositioning of medications, such as corticosteroids, for the treatment of hospitalised COVID-19 patients. OBJECTIVE: To assess and summarise corticosteroid regimens used for hospitalised COVID-19 patients, focusing on dosage, route of administration, and clinical outcome from clinical trials. METHODS: PubMed and Embase databases and the grey literature were searched to identify randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that evaluated the efficacy of corticosteroids in hospitalised patients with COVID-19 between January 2020 and January 2023. This scoping review was conducted in line with the PRISMA extension for scoping reviews (PRISMA-ScR) checklist. KEY FINDINGS: A total of 24 RCTs were eligible for inclusion. There was variation in the steroid regimens used for treatment across COVID-19 trials. Despite the heterogeneity of included RCTs, the overall results have shown the benefits of improving lung function and a lower all-cause mortality rate in hospitalised COVID-19 patients treated with systematic corticosteroids. CONCLUSIONS: Corticosteroids have proven to be an effective treatment for COVID-19 patients in critical condition. However, comparative effectiveness studies should be conducted to assess the efficacy and safety of optimal corticosteroid treatment at the population level. Moreover, the global burden of long COVID is significant, affecting millions with persistent symptoms and long-term health complications. Thus, it is also necessary to evaluate the optimal steroid regimen for long COVID treatment.

Community pharmacists and people with dementia: a cross-sectional survey exploring experiences, attitudes, and knowledge of pain and its management.

OBJECTIVES: To explore community pharmacists' experiences with and attitudes towards people with dementia, and to determine the knowledge they have about pain and its management in this patient population. METHODS: A questionnaire comprising five sections, including the Approaches to Dementia Questionnaire, was mailed, on two occasions, during February and March 2011, to all community pharmacies in Northern Ireland (n = 530). RESULTS: The response rate was 34.3%. A greater proportion of pharmacists provided pharmaceutical care to people with dementia living at home (91.2%) than those living in care homes (40.1%). Respondents most frequently encountered queries relating to starting and stopping medications, compliance with medication, and availability of formulation types. The mean total score for the Approaches to Dementia Questionnaire measure was 72.8, indicating a positive attitude towards people with dementia, and respondents demonstrated a strong person-centred approach towards this patient population. The majority of respondents recognised the difficulty of assessing pain in people with dementia; however, younger pharmacists (p = 0.041) and pharmacists who provided pharmaceutical care to people with dementia (p = 0.012) were more likely to be aware of the pain assessment tools for use in people with dementia. Pharmacists appeared uncertain about how to appropriately manage pain in people with dementia. CONCLUSIONS: The study has revealed that community pharmacists often encounter people with dementia, especially those living in their own homes, and they have positive attitudes towards the patient population. However, training in the assessment and management of pain in people with dementia must be developed to further improve their knowledge in this area.