Medication reviews in hospitalized patients: a qualitative study on perceptions of primary and secondary care providers on interprofessional collaboration.

BACKGROUND: In-hospital medication reviews are regularly performed. However, discontinuity in care could occur because secondary care providers lack insight into the outpatient history. Furthermore, for the implementation or follow-up of some medication review-based interventions, the help of primary care providers is essential. This requires interprofessional collaboration between secondary and primary care. Therefore, the aim of this qualitative study was to gain insight into the perceptions of primary and secondary care providers on interprofessional collaboration on medication reviews in hospitalised patients. METHODS: Ten face-to-face semi-structured interviews and three focus group discussions were conducted with 20 healthcare providers from three hospitals and community health services. The interviews were aimed at exploring general practitioners', community pharmacists', geriatricians', and hospital pharmacists' experiences, attitudes, and views of interprofessional collaboration. Focus groups consisted of representatives of all professional groups. Through group discussion, interprofessional collaboration was explored by addressing three main questions: 1) What are the benefits of in-hospital medication reviews? 2) What are the barriers to in-hospital medication reviews from an interprofessional collaboration perspective? 3) Given the barriers mentioned, how should this interprofessional collaboration between primary and secondary care be designed? Data were analysed using a thematic-content approach. RESULTS: The need for in-hospital medication reviews was underlined due to their many benefits, such as reducing potentially preventable re-admissions. Barriers regarding interprofessional collaboration between primary and secondary care can be subdivided into three main themes: 1) defining in-hospital medication reviews (e.g., lack of clear goals), 2) execution of medication reviews (e.g., hospital setting is dynamic), and 3) follow-up after discharge (e.g., unclear instructions). Care providers suggested solutions for each of the barriers mentioned, for example, by using supportive staff in order to overcome the gap between primary and secondary care providers and making clear agreements on proper means of communication. CONCLUSION: Primary and secondary care providers recognise the importance of in-hospital medication reviews and the need for interprofessional collaboration. To create satisfying interprofessional collaboration, conditions should be met on defining in-hospital medication reviews across settings and involving both primary and secondary care providers in implementing medication reviews and organising their follow-up.

[Adequacy of the pharmacological prescription during the admission in a geriatric hospital. Clinical experiencie with STOPP/START criteria]. / Adecuación de la prescripción farmacológica durante el ingreso en un centro sociosanitario: experiencia clínica con los criterios STOPP/START.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: The elderly patient is particularly vulnerable to potentially inappropriate prescription (PIP) due to physiological reasons, comorbidity, polypharmacy or the different pharmacokinetics/pharmacodynamics of drugs. The aim of this study was to determine the prevalence of PIP according to the STOPP-START criteria in patients over 65 years admitted into a geriatric hospital, as well as to appraise its acceptance by geriatricians. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Retrospective observational study. Patients older than 65 years consecutively admitted to medium/long-stay units were included. The study information was obtained by reviewing the clinical record of the patients. The PIP according to the STOPP-START criteria were assessed by the geriatrician, who decided whether or not to modify the medication and recorded the reasons. RESULTS: 247 patients were included, mean age was 82.6 years (SD 7.3), 72.1% of patients were female and a median of 7 drugs (25-75 percentile: 4-9). 78.9% (95%CI: 73.3-83.9) of patients had at least one PIP STOPP-START at admission, 44.9% (95%CI: 38.6-51.4) PIP-STOPP and 59.5% (95%CI: 53.1-65.7) PIP-START. At hospital discharge, the prevalence of PIP-STOPP-START was 46.2% (95%CI: 39.8-52.6), 19.0% (95%CI: 14.3-24.5) of PIP-STOPP and 34.4% (95%CI: 28.5-40.7) PIP-START. CONCLUSIONS: The comprehensive geriatric assessment and the use of the STOPP-START criteria can significantly reduce the prevalence of PIP among patients admitted to a geriatric hospital. Nevertheless, issues such as frailty, multimorbidity and functional goals would be taken into account in the appropriateness of the prescription.

Physician Perspectives on Deprescribing Cardiovascular Medications for Older Adults.

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVES: Guideline-based management of cardiovascular disease often involves prescribing multiple medications, which contributes to polypharmacy and risk for adverse drug events in older adults. Deprescribing is a potential strategy to mitigate these risks. We sought to characterize and compare clinician perspectives regarding deprescribing cardiovascular medications across three specialties. DESIGN: National cross-sectional survey. SETTING: Ambulatory. PARTICIPANTS: Random sample of geriatricians, general internists, and cardiologists from the American College of Physicians. MEASUREMENTS: Electronic survey assessing clinical practice of deprescribing cardiovascular medications, reasons and barriers to deprescribing, and choice of medications to deprescribe in hypothetical clinical cases. RESULTS: In each specialty, 750 physicians were surveyed, with a response rate of 26% for geriatricians, 26% for general internists, and 12% for cardiologists. Over 80% of respondents within each specialty reported that they had recently considered deprescribing a cardiovascular medication. Adverse drug reactions were the most common reason for deprescribing for all specialties. Geriatricians also commonly reported deprescribing in the setting of limited life expectancy. Barriers to deprescribing were shared across specialties and included concerns about interfering with other physicians' treatment plans and patient reluctance. In hypothetical cases, over 90% of physicians in each specialty chose to deprescribe when patients experienced adverse drug reactions. Geriatricians were most likely and cardiologists were least likely to consider deprescribing cardiovascular medications in cases of limited life expectancy (all P < .001), such as recurrent metastatic cancer (84% of geriatricians, 68% of general internists, and 45% of cardiologists), Alzheimer dementia (92% of geriatricians, 81% of general internists, and 59% of cardiologists), or significant functional impairment (83% of geriatricians, 68% of general internists, and 45% of cardiologists). CONCLUSIONS: While barriers to deprescribing cardiovascular medications are shared across specialties, reasons for deprescribing, especially in the setting of limited life expectancy, varied. Implementing deprescribing will require improved processes for both physician-physician and physician-patient communication. J Am Geriatr Soc 68:78-86, 2019.

Geriatricians' attitudes towards voluntary assisted dying: A survey of Australian and New Zealand Society for Geriatric Medicine members.

OBJECTIVE: To identify the attitudes of Australian and New Zealand geriatricians to legalisation of voluntary assisted dying. METHODS: An anonymous, voluntary, online survey of Australian and New Zealand Society for Geriatric Medicine (ANZSGM) members. RESULTS: A total of 226 members completed the survey equating to a 20% response rate. About 24% of respondents supported legalisation of voluntary assisted dying, whilst 53% opposed. If voluntary assisted dying was legalised, 12% would be willing to prescribe to an appropriate patient, and 61% would be willing to refer them onto a third party. Risk to vulnerable patients was the most important concern identified. CONCLUSIONS: Support for voluntary assisted dying among surveyed ANZSGM members is low, but varies according to patient circumstances. Key areas of concern highlighted were risk to vulnerable patients, estimating prognosis, and capacity assessments. Further training is required for doctors on discussing voluntary assisted dying options, estimating prognosis, and capacity assessments prior to implementation.

Challenges of modern medicine - geriatric otolaryngology or the advantages of cooperation between an otolaryngologist and a geriatrician.

Advanced age is often burdened with many deficits that are a consequence of the aging process, unfavorable lifestyle and multi-morbidity. They contribute to increased morbidity and disability of the older people. Laryngological problems often concern seniors, particularly progressing with age hearing impairment, dizziness, balance disorders, epistaxis, nasopharyngeal diseases, larynx, sinuses, and salivary glands disorders. They are not only a health threat, such as head and neck cancer, but they contribute to the deterioration of mobility, falls and injuries, depression, cognitive functions impairment and, consequently, functional disability, loss of independence and a sense of isolation. In this context, taking as an example the most common ailment, which is hearing impairment, laryngological procedures in the form of the use of hearing aids or cochlear implant improves cognitive functions, mood, self-esteem, opportunities for social interaction and everyday functioning, and the quality of life of older people. In turn, in view of the typical for older age polypathology and of significant reduction of the reserves of the organism, effective treatment aimed at improving health, preventing complications of diagnostics and therapy as well as disability with the desire to maintain independence and good quality of life requires the cooperation of different specialists. The knowledge and experience of geriatricians and the comprehensive geriatric assessment used as the diagnostic tool, aimed at identifying deficits typical of seniors' age may significantly contribute to a more adequate risk and benefit assessment, selection of optimal treatment for a given health situation and identification of high-risk individuals requiring during the treatment period special supervision to reduce the risk of complications and the risk of development of geriatric syndromes such as delirium, cognitive disorders, malnutrition, falls and injuries, functional disability.

Cooperation between geriatricians and general practitioners for improved pharmacotherapy in home-dwelling elderly people receiving polypharmacy - the COOP Study: study protocol for a cluster randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Polypharmacy and inappropriate drug use is associated with negative health outcomes among older people. Various interventions for improving drug treatment have been evaluated, but the majority of studies are limited by the use of surrogate outcomes or suboptimal design. Thus, the potential for clinically significant improvements from different interventions is still unclear. The main objective of this study is therefore to evaluate the effect upon patient-relevant endpoints of a cooperation between geriatricians and general practitioners on complex drug regimens in home-dwelling elderly people. METHODS: This is a cluster randomised, single-blind, controlled trial where general practitioners are invited to participate with patients from their lists. The patients must be 70 years or older, use at least seven different medications and have their medications administered by the home nursing service. We plan to recruit 200 patients, with randomisation at physician level. The intervention consists of three main parts: (1) clinical geriatric assessment of the patient, combined with a thorough review of their medications; (2) a meeting between the geriatrician and general practitioner, where the two physicians combine their competence and knowledge and discuss the drug list systematically; (3) clinical follow-up, depending on the medication changes that have been done. The study period is 24 weeks, and the patients are assessed at baseline, 16 and 24 weeks. The primary outcome measure is health-related quality of life according to the 15D instrument. Secondary outcome measures include physical and cognitive functioning, medication appropriateness, falls, carer burden, use of health services (hospital or nursing home admissions, use of home nursing services) and mortality. DISCUSSION: Our choice of patient-relevant outcome measures will hopefully provide new knowledge on the potential for clinical improvements after performing comprehensive medication reviews in home-dwelling elderly people receiving polypharmacy. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02379455 . Registered on 27 February 2015.