Deprescribing in primary care without deterioration of health-related outcomes: A real-life, quality improvement project.

Medication reviews focusing on deprescribing can reduce potentially inappropriate medication; however, evidence regarding effects on health-related outcomes is sparse. In a real-life quality improvement project using a newly developed chronic care model, we investigated how a general practitioner-led medication review intervention focusing on deprescribing affected health-related outcomes. We performed a before-after intervention study including care home residents and community-dwelling patients affiliated with a large Danish general practice. The primary outcomes were changes in self-reported health status, general condition and functional level from baseline to 3-4 months follow-up. Of the 105 included patients, 87 completed the follow-up. From baseline to follow-up, 255 medication changes were made, of which 83% were deprescribing. Mean self-reported health status increased (0.55 [95% CI: 0.22 to 0.87]); the proportion with general condition rated as 'average or above' was stable (0.06 [95% CI: -0.02 to 0.14]); and the proportion with functional level 'without any disability' was stable (-0.05 [95% CI: -0.09 to 0.001]). In conclusion, this general practitioner-led medication review intervention was associated with deprescribing and increased self-reported health status without the deterioration of general condition or functional level in real-life primary care patients. The results should be interpreted carefully given the small sample size and lack of control group.

Involving patients in medicines optimisation in general practice: a development study of the "PREparing Patients for Active Involvement in medication Review" (PREPAIR) tool.

BACKGROUND: Many patients have multiple health conditions and take multiple medications (polypharmacy). Active patient involvement may improve treatment outcomes and ensure patient-centred care. Yet, patient involvement remains a challenge in clinical practice. We aimed to develop and pilot test a questionnaire-based preparation and dialogue tool, the PREparing Patients for Active Involvement in medication Review (PREPAIR) tool, to encourage the involvement of patients with polypharmacy in medicines optimisation in general practice. METHODS: We conducted a literature review followed by a co-production process to develop the tool: a workshop with six GPs and pilot testing, including observations and interviews, with 22 patients, three GPs and three practice staff. During this process, we made continuous adaptations to the prototype. We analysed the qualitative data thematically, focusing on the development process and mechanisms of impact. FINDINGS: The final PREPAIR tool included five items concerning the patient's experience of 1) adverse drug reactions, 2) excess medication, 3) unnecessary medication, 4) medication satisfaction and 5) medication-related topics to discuss with the GP (open-ended question). The applied workflow during testing was as follows; the patient completed the PREPAIR tool at home, to encourage reflection on the medication, and brought it to the GP consultation. During the consultation, the GP and the patient reviewed the patient's responses and discussed potential medication-related problems. For some patients, the increased reflection led to worries about the medications. Still, the pilot testing showed that, when using the PREPAIR tool, the patients arrived at the clinic well prepared and empowered to speak. From the PREPAIR-supported dialogue, the GPs obtained a better understanding of patients' perspectives and provided a more patient-centred consultation. For the patients, the PREPAIR-supported dialogue ultimately promoted an increased sense of security, satisfaction and insight into their medication, despite initial worries for some patients. CONCLUSIONS: We developed a brief tool to support active patient involvement in medication review in general practice. The PREPAIR-tool was well received by both patients and GPs and fitted well into the existing clinical practice. Our findings suggest that the PREPAIR-tool can support patient involvement during consultations and facilitate patient-centred care.

External validation of the Medication Risk Score in polypharmacy patients in general practice: A tool for prioritizing patients at greatest risk of potential drug-related problems.

Drug-related problems are important causes of patient harm and increased healthcare costs. To assist general practitioners in prioritizing patients in need of a critical medication review, we aimed to assess the ability of the Medication Risk Score (MERIS) to stratify patients with polypharmacy in general practice according to their risk of drug-related problems. We conducted a cross-sectional multi-centre external validation study. Patients receiving more than five concomitant medications (polypharmacy) were eligible. The outcome was potentially serious drug-related problems as evaluated by expert consensus. Performance was assessed in terms of calibration and discrimination indices. Of 497 patients, 489 were included in the main analysis. The median age (interquartile range) was 70.5 years (60-79). In total, 372 potentially serious drug-related problems were observed in 253 patients (52%). The MERIS was well calibrated above a score level of 10. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve was 0.70 (95% confidence interval: 0.65-0.74). The performance of the MERIS was fair in patients with polypharmacy in general practice. Given the scale of drug-related problems and the lack of efficient prioritization tools in this setting, the MERIS could be a useful risk indicator to complement usual practice.

[Deprescribing of inappropriate medication in primary care].

Multimorbidity and polypharmacy increasingly challenge healthcare systems. In this review, we discuss the deprescribing of inappriopriate medication, which is essential for improved patient care and optimal use of healthcare resources. Barriers of deprescribing in primary care are multifaceted and exist not only at the general practitioner level or the patient level but also at the organizational, structural, and sociocultural levels. New approaches and tools are emerging. However, the complexity of this challenge calls for broad healthcare initiatives and policies to reduce inappropriate prescribing.