Randomized Trial of Information for Older Women About Cessation of Breast Cancer Screening Invitations.

BACKGROUND: Older women receive no information about why Australia's breast screening program (BreastScreen) invitations cease after 74 years. We tested how providing older women with the rationale for breast screening cessation impacted informed choice (adequate knowledge; screening attitudes aligned with intention). METHODS: In a three-arm online randomized trial, eligible participants were females aged 70-74 years who had recently participated in breast screening (within 5 years), without personal breast cancer history, recruited through Qualtrics. Participants read a hypothetical scenario in which they received a BreastScreen letter reporting no abnormalities on their mammogram. They were randomized to receive the letter: (1) without any rationale for screening cessation (control); (2) with screening cessation rationale in printed-text form (e.g., downsides of screening outweigh the benefits after age 74); or (3) with screening cessation rationale presented in an animation video form. The primary outcome was informed choice about continuing/stopping breast screening beyond 74 years. RESULTS: A total of 376 participant responses were analyzed. Compared to controls (n = 122), intervention arm participants (text [n = 132] or animation [n = 122]) were more likely to make an informed choice (control 18.0%; text 32.6%, p = .010; animation 40.5%, p < .001). Intervention arm participants had more adequate knowledge (control 23.8%; text 59.8%, p < .001; animation 68.9%, p < .001), lower screening intentions (control 17.2%; text 36.4%, p < .001; animation 49.2%, p < .001), and fewer positive screening attitudes regarding screening for themselves in the animation arm, but not in the text arm (control 65.6%; text 51.5%, p = .023; animation 40.2%, p < .001). CONCLUSIONS: Providing information to older women about the rationale for breast cancer screening cessation increased informed decision-making in a hypothetical scenario. This study is an important first step in improving messaging provided by national cancer screening providers direct to older adults. Further research is needed to assess the impact of different elements of the intervention and the impact of providing this information in clinical practice, with more diverse samples. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ANZCTRN12623000033640.

How different countries respond to adverse events whilst patients' rights are protected.

Patient safety is high on the policy agenda internationally. Learning from safety incidents is a core component in achieving the important goal of increasing patient safety. This study explores the legal frameworks in the countries to promote reporting, disclosure, and supporting healthcare professionals (HCPs) involved in safety incidents. A cross-sectional online survey was conducted to ascertain an overview of the legal frameworks at national level, as well as relevant policies. ERNST (The European Researchers' Network Working on Second Victims) group peer-reviewed data collected from countries was performed to validate information. Information from 27 countries was collected and analyzed, giving a response rate of 60%. A reporting system for patient safety incidents was in place in 85.2% (N = 23) of countries surveyed, though few (37%, N = 10) were focused on systems-learning. In about half of the countries (48.1%, N = 13) open disclosure depends on the initiative of HCPs. The tort liability system was common in most countries. No-fault compensation schemes and alternative forms of redress were less common. Support for HCPs involved in patient safety incidents was extremely limited, with just 11.1% (N = 3) of participating countries reporting that supports were available in all healthcare institutions. Despite progress in the patient safety movement worldwide, the findings suggest that there are considerable differences in the approach to the reporting and disclosure of patient safety incidents. Additionally, models of compensation vary limiting patients' access to redress. Finally, the results highlight the need for comprehensive support for HCPs involved in safety incidents.

Screening for cancer beyond recommended upper age limits: views and experiences of older people.

BACKGROUND: Internationally, screening programmes and clinical practice guidelines recommend when older adults should stop cancer screening using upper age limits, but it is unknown how older adults view these recommendations. OBJECTIVE: To examine older adults' views and experiences about continuing or stopping cancer screening beyond the recommended upper age limit for breast, cervical, prostate and bowel cancer. DESIGN: Qualitative, semi-structured interviews. SETTING: Australia, telephone. SUBJECTS: A total of 29 community-dwelling older adults (≥70-years); recruited from organisation newsletters, mailing lists and Facebook advertisements. METHODS: Interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed and analysed thematically using Framework Analysis. RESULTS: Firstly, older adults were on a spectrum between trusting recommendations and actively deciding about cancer screening, with some who were uncertain. Secondly, participants reported limited in-depth discussions with health professionals about cancer screening. In primary care, discussions were focused on checking they were up to date with screening or going over results. Discussions mostly only occurred if older adults initiated themselves. Finally, participants had a socially- and self-constructed understanding of screening recommendations and potential outcomes. Perceived reasons for upper age limits were cost, reduced cancer risk or ageism. Risks of screening were understood in relation to their own social experiences (e.g. shared stories about friends with adverse outcomes of cancer treatment or conversations with friends/family about controversy around prostate screening). CONCLUSIONS: Direct-to-patient information and clinician support may help improve communication about the changing benefit to harm ratio of cancer screening with increasing age and increase understanding about the rationale for an upper age limit for cancer screening programmes.

Costs to the Medicare Benefits Schedule for general practitioner consultations: A time-series analysis.

The COVID-19 pandemic was a catalyst for the introduction of additional telehealth funding (telehealth item numbers) for general practitioner (GP) consultations through the Medicare Benefits Schedule (MBS) in Australia. This study evaluated the impact of telehealth funding on costs to the MBS for GP consultations from January 2017 to December 2021. An interrupted time series analysis assessed MBS costs (initial and monthly growth) for GP consultations (in-person, videoconference, telephone) before and after additional telehealth item numbers were introduced. From January 2017 to February 2020, total MBS costs for GP consultations were, on average, $545 million per month compared to $592 million per month from March 2020 to December 2021. There was an initial cost increase of approximately $39 million in the first month after additional telehealth funding was introduced (p = 0.0001). Afterwards, there was no significant change in monthly costs (p = 0.539). The introduction of additional MBS telehealth funding increased overall MBS costs for GP consultations. This increased cost for GP telehealth services could save costs to society if it translates into improved continuity of care, decreased hospitalisations, reduced productivity losses and improved patient outcomes. Future policy reform should incorporate a cost-benefit analysis to determine if increased MBS costs for GP consultations are a good investment.

General practitioners' views and experiences of communicating with older people about cancer screening: a qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: Older adults should be supported to make informed decisions about cancer screening. However, it is unknown how general practitioners (GPs) in Australia communicate about cancer screening with older people. AIM: To investigate GPs' views and experiences of communicating about cancer screening (breast, cervical, prostate, and bowel) with older people (≥70 years). DESIGN AND SETTING: Qualitative, semi-structured interviews, Australia. METHOD: Interviews were conducted with GPs practising in Australia (n = 28), recruited through practice-based research networks, primary health networks, social media, and email invitation. Interviews were audio-recorded and analysed thematically using Framework Analysis. RESULTS: Findings across GPs were organized into 3 themes: (i) varied motivation to initiate cancer screening discussions; some GPs reported that they only initiated screening within recommended ages (<75 years), others described initiating discussions beyond recommended ages, and some experienced older patient-initiated discussions; (ii) GPs described the role they played in providing screening information, whereby detailed discussions about the benefits/risks of prostate screening were more likely than other nationally funded screening types (breast, cervical, and bowel); however, some GPs had limited knowledge of recommendations and found it challenging to explain why screening recommendations have upper ages; (iii) GPs reported providing tailored advice and discussion based on personal patient preferences, overall health/function, risk of cancer, and previous screening. CONCLUSIONS: Strategies to support conversations between GPs and older people about the potential benefits and harms of screening in older age and rationale for upper age limits to screening programmes may be helpful. Further research in this area is needed.

Safer Prescribing and Care for the Elderly (SPACE): a cluster randomised controlled trial in general practice.

BACKGROUND: Safer prescribing in general practice may help to decrease preventable adverse drug events (ADE) and related hospitalisations. AIM: To test the effect of the Safer Prescribing and Care for the Elderly (SPACE) intervention on high-risk prescribing of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) and/or antiplatelet medicines and related hospitalisations. DESIGN & SETTING: A pragmatic cluster randomised controlled trial in general practice. Participants were patients at increased risk of ADEs from NSAIDs and/or antiplatelet medicines at baseline. SPACE comprises automated search to generate for each GP a list of patients with high-risk prescribing; pharmacist outreach to provide education and one-on-one review of list with GP; and automated letter inviting patients to seek medication review with their GP. METHOD: The primary outcome was the difference in high-risk prescribing of NSAIDs and/or antiplatelet medicines at 6 months. Secondary outcomes were high-risk prescribing for gastrointestinal, renal, or cardiac ADEs separately, 12-month outcomes, and related ADE hospitalisations. RESULTS: Thirty-nine practices were recruited with 205 GPs and 191 593 patients, of which 21 877 (11.4%) were participants. Of the participants, 1479 (6.8%) had high-risk prescribing. High-risk prescribing improved in both groups at 6 and 12 months compared with baseline. At 6 months, there was no significant difference between groups (odds ratio [OR] 0.99; 95% confidence intervals [CI] = 0.87 to 1.13) although SPACE improved more for gastrointestinal ADEs (OR 0.81; 95% CI = 0.68 to 0.96). At 12 months, the control group improved more (OR 1.29; 95% CI = 1.11 to 1.49). There was no significant difference for related hospitalisations. CONCLUSION: Further work is needed to identify scalable interventions that support safer prescribing in general practice. The use of automated search and feedback plus letter to patient warrants further exploration.

Medication-related harm in New Zealand general practice: a retrospective records review.

BACKGROUND: The extent of medication-related harm in general practice is unknown. AIM: To identify and describe all medication-related harm in electronic general practice records. The secondary aim was to investigate factors potentially associated with medication-related harm. DESIGN AND SETTING: Retrospective cohort records review study in 44 randomly selected New Zealand general practices for the 3 years 2011-2013. METHOD: Eight GPs reviewed 9076 randomly selected patient records. Medication-related harms were identified when the causal agent was prescribed in general practice. Harms were coded by type, preventability, and severity. The number and proportion of patients who experienced medication-related harm was calculated. Weighted logistic regression was used to identify factors associated with harm. RESULTS: In total, 976 of 9076 patients (10.8%) experienced 1762 medication-related harms over 3 years. After weighting, the incidence rate of all medication-related harms was 73.9 harms per 1000 patient-years, and the incidence of preventable, or potentially preventable, medication-related harms was 15.6 per 1000 patient-years. Most harms were minor (n = 1385/1762, 78.6%), but around one in five harms were moderate or severe (n = 373/1762, 21.2%); three patients died. Eighteen study patients were hospitalised; after weighting this correlates to a hospitalisation rate of 1.1 per 1000 patient-years. Increased age, number of consultations, and number of medications were associated with increased risk of medication-related harm. Cardiovascular medications, antineoplastic and immunomodulatory agents, and anticoagulants caused most harm by frequency and severity. CONCLUSION: Medication-related harm in general practice is common. This study adds to the evidence about the risk posed by medication in the real world. Findings can be used to inform decision making in general practice.

General practitioners' deprescribing decisions in older adults with polypharmacy: a case vignette study in 31 countries.

BACKGROUND: General practitioners (GPs) should regularly review patients' medications and, if necessary, deprescribe, as inappropriate polypharmacy may harm patients' health. However, deprescribing can be challenging for physicians. This study investigates GPs' deprescribing decisions in 31 countries. METHODS: In this case vignette study, GPs were invited to participate in an online survey containing three clinical cases of oldest-old multimorbid patients with potentially inappropriate polypharmacy. Patients differed in terms of dependency in activities of daily living (ADL) and were presented with and without history of cardiovascular disease (CVD). For each case, we asked GPs if they would deprescribe in their usual practice. We calculated proportions of GPs who reported they would deprescribe and performed a multilevel logistic regression to examine the association between history of CVD and level of dependency on GPs' deprescribing decisions. RESULTS: Of 3,175 invited GPs, 54% responded (N = 1,706). The mean age was 50 years and 60% of respondents were female. Despite differences across GP characteristics, such as age (with older GPs being more likely to take deprescribing decisions), and across countries, overall more than 80% of GPs reported they would deprescribe the dosage of at least one medication in oldest-old patients (> 80 years) with polypharmacy irrespective of history of CVD. The odds of deprescribing was higher in patients with a higher level of dependency in ADL (OR =1.5, 95%CI 1.25 to 1.80) and absence of CVD (OR =3.04, 95%CI 2.58 to 3.57). INTERPRETATION: The majority of GPs in this study were willing to deprescribe one or more medications in oldest-old multimorbid patients with polypharmacy. Willingness was higher in patients with increased dependency in ADL and lower in patients with CVD.

Patient Characteristics and General Practitioners' Advice to Stop Statins in Oldest-Old Patients: a Survey Study Across 30 Countries.

BACKGROUND: Statins are widely used to prevent cardiovascular disease (CVD). With advancing age, the risks of statins might outweigh the potential benefits. It is unclear which factors influence general practitioners' (GPs) advice to stop statins in oldest-old patients. OBJECTIVE: To investigate the influence of a history of CVD, statin-related side effects, frailty and short life expectancy, on GPs' advice to stop statins in oldest-old patients. DESIGN: We invited GPs to participate in this case-based survey. GPs were presented with 8 case vignettes describing patients > 80 years using a statin, and asked whether they would advise stopping statin treatment. MAIN MEASURES: Cases varied in history of CVD, statin-related side effects and frailty, with and without shortened life expectancy (< 1 year) in the context of metastatic, non-curable cancer. Odds ratios adjusted for GP characteristics (ORadj) were calculated for GPs' advice to stop. KEY RESULTS: Two thousand two hundred fifty GPs from 30 countries participated (median response rate 36%). Overall, GPs advised stopping statin treatment in 46% (95%CI 45-47) of the case vignettes; with shortened life expectancy, this proportion increased to 90% (95CI% 89-90). Advice to stop was more frequent in case vignettes without CVD compared to those with CVD (ORadj 13.8, 95%CI 12.6-15.1), with side effects compared to without ORadj 1.62 (95%CI 1.5-1.7) and with frailty (ORadj 4.1, 95%CI 3.8-4.4) compared to without. Shortened life expectancy increased advice to stop (ORadj 50.7, 95%CI 45.5-56.4) and was the strongest predictor for GP advice to stop, ranging across countries from 30% (95%CI 19-42) to 98% (95% CI 96-99). CONCLUSIONS: The absence of CVD, the presence of statin-related side effects, and frailty were all independently associated with GPs' advice to stop statins in patients aged > 80 years. Overall, and within all countries, cancer-related short life expectancy was the strongest independent predictor of GPs' advice to stop statins.

Safer Prescribing and Care for the Elderly (SPACE): a pilot study in general practice.

BACKGROUND: High-risk prescribing places patients at increased risk of adverse drug events (ADEs). High-risk prescribing and ADE hospitalisations are increasingly common as people are living longer and taking more medicines for multiple chronic conditions. The Safer Prescribing and Care for the Elderly (SPACE) intervention is designed to foster patient engagement in medicines management and prompt medicines review. AIM: To pilot the SPACE intervention in preparation for a larger cluster randomised controlled trial (RCT). DESIGN & SETTING: A pilot study in two general practices. Study participants were all patients at increased risk of an adverse drug reaction (ADE) from non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) and/or antiplatelet medicines. The primary outcome was the proportion of participants receiving high-risk prescribing at 6 months and 12 months compared with baseline. METHOD: The SPACE intervention comprised automated practice audit to identify and generate for each GP a list of patients with high-risk prescribing for these medicines; an outreach visit by clinical advisory pharmacist to deliver education and to go through with each GP their list of at-risk patients and indicate in a tick-box the intended action for each patient; and a mail-out from GPs to selected patients containing a medicines information brochure and a letter encouraging patients to discuss their medicines when they next see their GP. RESULTS: SPACE can be delivered within existing primary care infrastructure. The rate of high-risk prescribing was reduced at 6 months following the delivery of the intervention, but these improvements were not evident at 12 months. CONCLUSION: SPACE prompts medicines review and shows promising signs of supporting safer prescribing in general practice in the short term. A randomised trial of SPACE started in 2018.

Safer Prescribing and Care for the Elderly (SPACE): Protocol of a Cluster Randomized Controlled Trial in Primary Care.

BACKGROUND: High-risk prescribing, adverse drug events, and avoidable adverse drug event hospitalizations are common. The single greatest risk factor for high-risk prescribing and adverse drug events is the number of medications a person is taking. More people are living longer and taking more medications for multiple long-term conditions. Most on-going prescribing occurs in primary care. The most effective, cost-effective, and practical approach to safer prescribing in primary care is not yet known. OBJECTIVE: To test the effect of the Safer Prescribing And Care for the Elderly (SPACE) intervention on high-risk prescribing of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory and antiplatelet medicines, and related adverse drug event hospitalizations. METHODS: This is a protocol of a cluster randomized controlled trial. The clusters will be primary care practices. Data collection and analysis will be at the level of patient. RESULTS: Recruitment started in 2018. Six-month data collection will be in 2018. CONCLUSIONS: This study addresses an important translational gap, testing an intervention designed to prompt medicines review and support safer prescribing in routine primary care practice. TRIAL REGISTRATIONgeneral practice: Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry: ACTRN12618000034235 http://www.ANZCTR.org.au/ACTRN12618000034235.aspx (Archived with Webcite at http://www.webcitation.org/6yj9RImDf)

Swimming Against the Tide: Primary Care Physicians' Views on Deprescribing in Everyday Practice.

PURPOSE: Avoidable hospitalizations due to adverse drug events and high-risk prescribing are common in older people. Primary care physicians prescribe most on-going medicines. Deprescribing has long been essential to best prescribing practice. We sought to explore the views of primary care physicians on the barriers and facilitators to deprescribing in everyday practice to inform the development of an intervention to support safer prescribing. METHODS: We used a snowball sampling technique to identify potential participants. Physicians were selected on the basis of years in practice, employment status, and practice setting, with an additional focus on information-rich participants. Twenty-four semistructured interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed verbatim, and analyzed to identify emergent themes. RESULTS: Physicians described deprescribing as "swimming against the tide" of patient expectations, the medical culture of prescribing, and organizational constraints. They said deprescribing came with inherent risks for both themselves and patients and conveyed a sense of vulnerability in practice. The only incentive to deprescribing they identified was the duty to do what was right for the patient. Physicians recommended organizational changes to support safer prescribing, including targeted funding for annual medicines review, computer prompts, improved information flows between prescribers, improved access to expert advice and user-friendly decision support, increased availability of non-pharmaceutical therapies, and enhanced patient engagement in medicines management. CONCLUSIONS: Interventions to support safer prescribing in everyday practice should consider the sociocultural, personal, relational, and organizational constraints on deprescribing. Regulations and policies should be designed to support physicians in practicing according to their professional ethical values.

No medicine is sometimes the best medicine.

A 76-year-old woman was admitted to hospital from the rheumatology outpatient clinic for investigation of fatigue, malaise, emotional lability, muscle weakness, productive cough and postural hypotension. She had been taking prednisone 60-40 mg daily for 6 weeks for suspected giant cell arteritis, along with six other regular medications, and had recently finished a course of antibiotics. During her admission she underwent many investigations (mostly negative) and treatments (largely harmful). When the diagnosis of adverse drug reaction was eventually reached, her medications were withdrawn and her symptoms gradually resolved. She was discharged home 1 month after admission, vowing never to return following her 'stormy course'. Adverse drug reactions are a common cause of avoidable hospital admissions in the elderly, estimated to cost billions every year. The single greatest risk factor for adverse drug reactions is the number of medications a person takes. Deprescribing to reduce potentially inappropriate medication is a possible way forward.

New Zealand's 2005 'no-fault' compensation reforms and medical professional accountability for harm.

AIMS: To discover the effect of the 2005 'no-fault' compensation reforms on medical professional accountability for harm in the context of overall trends in New Zealand's medical professional accountability processes 2001-2010. METHODS: Data for the 5 years before and after the 2005 reforms were compared including compensation claims to the Accident Compensation Corporation (ACC), ACC reporting to the authorities, patient complaints to the Health and Disability Commissioner and outcomes, referrals to the Medical Council and outcomes, and disciplinary proceedings and outcomes. RESULTS: Following the 2005 compensation reforms, claims for compensation increased, ACC reporting overall increased but ACC reporting to the Medical Council decreased; patient complaints increased but the Health and Disability Commissioner investigated fewer complaints and referred fewer doctors for discipline while maintaining steady referrals to the Medical Council; referrals to the Medical Council decreased, and the Medical Council conducted fewer performance reviews and referred fewer doctors for discipline; disciplinary proceedings decreased but more hearings ended in guilty findings. CONCLUSIONS: Accountability via compensation decreased following the 2005 'no-fault' compensation reforms, contributing to an overall decrease in medical professional accountability for harm.

No-fault compensation for treatment injury in New Zealand: identifying threats to patient safety in primary care.

BACKGROUND: In 2005, the injury compensation legislation in New Zealand was reformed to extend coverage for medical injury removing both 'error' and 'severity' from eligibility criteria. This led to an increase in claiming and claims acceptance rate, thus enlarging the treatment injury claims database. This database provides an unusual 'no-fault' perspective of patient safety events. METHODS: The authors analysed the first 4 years of primary care treatment injury claims data to identify the type, incidence, severity and cause of injury in primary care. RESULTS: There were 6007 primary care treatment injury claims; 64% were accepted as treatment injuries. Most claims arose in general practice (62%), and most claimants were female (62%). Most claims were assessed as minor (83%), 12% major, 4% serious and 1% sentinel. Medication caused most injuries (38%) and most serious and sentinel injuries (60%). Dental treatment caused 16% of injuries; injections and vaccinations combined caused 10%; and venepuncture, cryotherapy and ear syringing combined caused 13.5% of injuries, mostly minor. 'Delay in diagnosis' caused few injuries overall (2%), but a disproportionate number of serious and sentinel injuries (16%) and deaths (50%). Spinal/ neck manipulation caused 2% of serious and sentinel injuries. CONCLUSIONS: New Zealand's no-fault treatment injury claims database provides information about primary care patient safety events from an unusual 'no-fault' perspective. This analysis reinforces previous research identifying medication as a high-risk primary care activity and further identifies other primary care activities (dental care, injections, venepuncture, cryotherapy and ear syringing) as carrying important risks for patient harm.

Cervical screening legislation is unethical and has the potential to be counter-productive.

Part 4A of the Health Act 1956--'National Cervical Screening Programme' (NCSP)--provides programme evaluators with unprecedented powers of access to personal health information, overriding both a woman's right to health information privacy and a doctor's duty of confidentiality. Such overriding of important ethical concepts is not justified, at least in the primary care setting where much of the information that may be accessed is irrelevant to a programme evaluation and that which is not irrelevant is not essential. In addition to being unethical, Part 4A is unnecessarily offensive to practitioners: it imposes increased compliance costs onto practitioners who take cervical smears, it threatens them with hefty fines for non-compliance, and also introduces liability into previously protected quality assurance activities. By offending both women and practitioners, and by undermining the trust that necessarily exists between them, Part 4A risks the support of those on whom the NCSP relies for its ongoing success--women and practitioners.