An innovative approach to aligning healthcare with what matters most to patients: A hybrid type 1 trial protocol of patient priorities care for older adults with multiple chronic conditions.

BACKGROUND: Providing healthcare for older adults with multiple chronic conditions (MCC) is challenging. Polypharmacy and complex treatment plans can lead to high treatment burden and risk for adverse events. For clinicians, managing the complexities of patients with MCC leaves little room to identify what matters and align care options with patients' health priorities. New care approaches are needed to navigate these challenges. In this clinical trial, we evaluate implementation and effectiveness outcomes of an innovative, structured, patient-centered care approach (Patient Priorities Care; PPC) for reducing treatment burden and aligning health care decisions with the health priorities of older adults with MCC. METHODS: This is a multisite, assessor-blind, two-arm, parallel hybrid type 1 randomized controlled trial. We are enrolling 396 older (65+) Veterans with MCC who receive primary care at the Veterans Affairs Medical Center. Veterans are randomly assigned to either PPC or usual care. In the PPC arm, Veterans have a brief telephone call with a study facilitator to identify their personal health priorities. Then, primary care providers use this information to align healthcare with Veteran priorities during their established clinic appointments. Data are collected at baseline and 4-month follow up to assess for changes in treatment burden and use of home and community services. Formative and summative evaluations are also collected to assess for implementation outcomes according to Proctor's implementation framework. CONCLUSIONS: This work has the potential to significantly improve the standard of care by personalizing healthcare and helping patients achieve what is most important to them.

Development of REDCap-based architecture for a clinical decision support tool linked to the electronic health record for assessment of medication appropriateness.

Objective: To develop the architecture for a clinical decision support system (CDSS) linked to the electronic health record (EHR) using the tools provided by Research Electronic Data Capture (REDCap) to assess medication appropriateness in older adults with polypharmacy. Materials and Methods: The tools available in REDCap were used to create the architecture for replicating a previously developed stand-alone system while overcoming its limitations. Results: The architecture consists of data input forms, drug- and disease-mapper, rules engine, and report generator. The input forms integrate medication and health condition data from the EHR with patient assessment data. The rules engine evaluates medication appropriateness through rules built through a series of drop-down menus. The rules generate output, which are a set of recommendations to the clinician. Discussion and conclusion: This architecture successfully replicates the stand-alone CDSS while addressing its limitations. It is compatible with several EHRs, easily shared among the large community using REDCap, and readily modifiable.

A virtual breakthrough series collaborative to support deprescribing interventions across Veterans Affairs healthcare settings.

BACKGROUND: Virtual collaborative models are a practical way to implement a supportive environment for multi-team learning. In this project, we aimed to describe the processes and outcomes of a virtual deprescribing collaborative that facilitated implementation of deprescribing interventions around the country. METHODS: Two successive cohorts comprised of multidisciplinary teams from geographically diverse veterans affairs (VA) sites were selected via an application process to participate in a virtual deprescribing collaborative. Each site developed its own deprescribing protocol and took part in regular meetings, mentoring groups, monthly data reporting, and other learning activities over an approximate 9 month period, per cohort. Standard measures were number of veterans served and medications deprescribed. Descriptive and qualitative analyses were utilized. RESULTS: Twenty-one total VA sites were selected to participate in the deprescribing collaborative in two cohorts (Cohort 1, n = 12 sites; Cohort 2, n = 9 sites). The majority of sites' practice areas directly served the older adult population, and the majority of site leads were pharmacists. The most utilized tool used by the collaborative sites was the VA VIONE decision support tool (n = 14) and the most common strategy was individualized medication review. Combining outcomes from both Cohorts 1 and 2, a total of n = 4770 veterans were served, with 8332 medications deprescribed. Eighty-two percent of Cohort 1 sites surveyed reported their deprescribing program was still being utilized after 1 year follow up. CONCLUSIONS: This virtual deprescribing collaborative aided in the successful implementation of both established and novel deprescribing practices across a variety of VA practice sites that care for older adults. The shared learning experience enhanced problem solving and allowed for interdisciplinary teamwork. Overall the collaborative was successful in improving polypharmacy for several thousand older adults.

Primary care clinicians' use of deprescribing recommendations: A mixed-methods study.

OBJECTIVE: to explore the effects of a deprescribing intervention on primary care clinicians' medication-related communication. METHODS: A clinical decision support tool provided clinicians in the intervention group with an individualized report regarding potentially inappropriate medications (PIMs), deintensification of diabetes and/or hypertension treatment, and poor adherence/cognition. Participants included 113 Veterans aged ≥ 65 prescribed ≥ 7 medications and their primary care clinicians. Encounters were recorded and analyzed. RESULTS: Between 36% and 38% of intervention clinicians discussed PIMs and diabetes mellitus/hypertension deintensification and 94% discussed adherence. PIMs discussions referred to the report and prompted some medication changes. The diabetes mellitus/hypertension and adherence discussions were not prompted by the report but instead arose from enhanced medication reconciliation. Changes in diabetes mellitus/hypertension medications were not made out of overtreatment concerns. There was no deprescribing for nonadherence. Enhanced medication reconciliation also led to discussions about medications not in the report. CONCLUSION: An individualized report regarding medication appropriateness prompted clinicians to perform a more thorough medication reconciliation and discuss PIMs. It did not prompt chronic care deintensification or deprescribing to enhance adherence. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: Feedback reports can promote robust medication reconciliation in primary care. Changing clinician practice to achieve deprescribing in chronic disease management will be more challenging.

Development and Validation of a Polypharmacy Knowledge Assessment Instrument.

Objective. To develop a brief instrument for academic pharmacists or physicians to use in assessing postgraduate residents' knowledge of polypharmacy. Methods. Five clinicians used a modified Delphi process to create a 26-item multiple-choice test to assess knowledge of polypharmacy in geriatric primary care. The test was distributed to 74 participants: 37 internal medicine (MD) residents, six nurse practitioner (NP) residents, nine primary care attendings, 12 pharmacists and pharmacy residents, and 10 geriatrics attendings and fellows. Construct validity was assessed using factor analysis and item response theory. Overall group differences were examined using a Kruskal-Wallis test, and between group differences were assessed using the Wilcoxon rank sum test. Results. The response rate for the survey was 89%. Factor analysis resulted in a one factor solution. Item response theory modeling yielded a 12-item and six-item test. For the 12-item test, the mean scores of geriatricians and pharmacists (88%) were higher than those of MD and NP residents (58%) and primary care attendings (61%). No differences were found between MD and NP residents and primary care attendings. Findings for the six-item test were similar. Conclusion. Both the 12-item and six-item versions of this polypharmacy test showed acceptable internal consistency and known groups validity and could be used in other academic settings. The similar scores between MD and NP residents and primary care attendings, which were significantly lower than scores for pharmacists and geriatricians, support the need for increased educational interventions.

Assessing an Interprofessional Polypharmacy and Deprescribing Educational Intervention for Primary Care Post-graduate Trainees: a Quantitative and Qualitative Evaluation.

BACKGROUND: Polypharmacy and potentially inappropriate medications (PIMs) are increasingly common and associated with adverse health effects. However, post-graduate education in polypharmacy and complex medication management for older adults remain limited. OBJECTIVE: The Initiative to Minimize Pharmaceutical Risk in Older Veterans (IMPROVE) polypharmacy clinic was created to provide a platform for teaching internal medicine (IM) and nurse practitioner (NP) residents about outpatient medication management and deprescribing for older adults. We aimed to assess residents' knowledge of polypharmacy and perceptions of this interprofessional education intervention. DESIGN: A prospective cohort study with an internal comparison group. PARTICIPANTS: IM residents and NP residents; Veterans ≥ 65 years and taking ≥ 10 medications. INTERVENTION: IMPROVE consists of a pre-clinic conference, shared medical appointment, individual appointment, and interprofessional precepting model. MAIN MEASURES: We assessed residents' performance on a pre-post knowledge test, residents' qualitative assessment of the educational impact of IMPROVE, and the number and type of medications discontinued or decreased. KEY RESULTS: The IMPROVE intervention group (n = 18) had a significantly greater improvement in test scores than the control group (n = 18) (14% ± 15% versus - 1.3% ± 16%) over a period of 6 months (Wilcoxon rank sum, p = 0.019). In focus groups, residents (n = 17) reported perceived improvements in knowledge and skills, noting that the experience changed their practice in other clinical settings. In addition, residents valued the unique interprofessional experience. Veterans (n = 71) had a median of 15 medications (IQR 12-19), and a median of 2 medications (IQR 1-3) was discontinued. Vitamins, supplements, and cardiovascular medications were the most commonly discontinued medications, and cardiovascular medications were the most commonly decreased in dose or frequency. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, IMPROVE is an effective model of post-graduate primary care training in complex medication management and deprescribing that improves residents' knowledge and skills, and is perceived by residents to influence their practice outside the program.

Medication appropriateness criteria for older adults: a narrative review of criteria and supporting studies.

Polypharmacy is common among older adults and is associated with adverse outcomes. Polypharmacy increases the likelihood of receiving a potentially inappropriate medication (PIM). PIMs have traditionally been defined as medications that have either no benefit (e.g. therapeutic duplication) or increased risk (e.g. altered pharmacodynamics/kinetics with aging). A growing literature supports the notion that these represent only a subset of the potential risks of medications prescribed to older adults. Different authors have proposed new sets of criteria for evaluating medication appropriateness. This narrative review had two objectives: 1) to summarize the contents of these criteria in order to obtain preliminary information about where clinical consensus exists regarding appropriateness; 2) The second was to describe studies examining the risks and benefits of medications identified by the criteria to determine the strength of the evidence supporting the derivation of these criteria. We identified 13 articles sharing overlapping criteria for evaluating appropriateness including: (1) delayed time to benefit; (2) altered benefit-harm ratios in the face of competing risks; (3) effects that do not match patients' goals; and (4) nonadherence. The similarities across the articles suggested strong clinical consensus; however, the articles presented little data directly supporting these criteria. Additional studies provide evidence for the proof of concept that average estimates of benefit and harm derived from randomized controlled trials may differ from the benefits and harms experienced by older persons. However, more data are required to characterize the benefits and harms of medications in the context of the regimen as a whole and the individual's health status.

Medication Appropriateness in Vulnerable Older Adults: Healthy Skepticism of Appropriate Polypharmacy.

Older adults are prescribed a growing number of medications. Polypharmacy, commonly considered the receipt of five or more medications, is associated with a range of adverse outcomes. There is a debate about the reason(s) why. On one side is the assertion that older persons are being prescribed too many medications, with the number of medications increasing the risk of adverse events. On the other side is the observation that polypharmacy is associated both with overprescribing of inappropriate medications and underprescribing of appropriate medications. This leads to the concept of "inappropriate" vs "appropriate" polypharmacy, with the latter resulting from the prescription of many correct medications to persons with multiple chronic conditions. Few studies have examined the health outcomes associated with adding and/or removing medications to address this debate directly. The criteria used to identify underutilized medications are based on results of randomized controlled trials that may not be generalizable to older adults. Several randomized controlled trials and many more observational studies provide evidence that these criteria overestimate medication benefits and underestimate harms. In addition, evidence suggests that the marginal effects of medications added to an already complex regimen differ from their effects when considered individually. Although in selected circumstances adding medications results in benefit to patients, patients with multimorbidity and frailty/disability have susceptibilities that can decrease the likelihood of medication benefit and increase the likelihood of harms. The identification of appropriate polypharmacy requires more robust criteria to evaluate the net effects of complex medication regimens.

Initiative to Minimize Pharmaceutical Risk in Older Veterans (IMPROVE) Polypharmacy Clinic.

An interprofessional polypharmacy clinic for intensive management of medication regimens helps high-risk patients manage their medications.