Improving effective contraception uptake through provision of bridging contraception within community pharmacies: findings from the Bridge-it Study process evaluation.

OBJECTIVE: To present process evaluation results from the Bridge-it Study, a pragmatic cluster randomised cross-over trial to improve effective contraception uptake through provision of the progestogen only pill (POP) plus sexual and reproductive health (SRH) clinic rapid-access to women presenting to community pharmacies for emergency contraception (EC). RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: A multimethod process evaluation was conducted to assess intervention implementation, mechanisms of change and contextual factors. Data were gathered from screening logs (n=599), observations of pharmacist training, analysis of data from 4-month follow-up questionnaires (n=406), monitoring of contemporaneous events and qualitative interviews with 22 pharmacists, 5 SRH clinical staff and 36 study participants in three participating UK sites in Lothian, Tayside and London. RESULTS: The intervention was largely delivered as intended and was acceptable. Pharmacists', SRH clinical staff and participants' accounts highlighted that providing a supply of POP with EC from the pharmacy as routine practice may have positive impacts on contraceptive practices in the short term, and potentially longer term. Key mechanisms of change included ease of access, increased awareness of contraception and services, and greater motivation and perceptions of self-efficacy. Few participants took up the offer to attend an SRH service (rapid-access component), and existing barriers within the SRH context were apparent (eg, lack of staff). Participant accounts highlight persistent barriers to accessing and using routine effective contraception remain. CONCLUSIONS: Implementation appeared to be acceptable and feasible, highlighting the potential for provision of POP within EC consultations as routine practice in community pharmacies. However, lack of engagement with the rapid access component of the intervention and existing barriers within the SRH context suggest that signposting to SRH services may be sufficient. Wider implementation should consider ways to address key implementation challenges to increase effectiveness and sustainability, and to overcome persistent barriers to accessing and using effective contraception. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN70616901.

Provision of the progestogen-only pill by community pharmacies as bridging contraception for women receiving emergency contraception: the Bridge-it RCT.

INTRODUCTION: Unless women start effective contraception after using emergency contraception, they remain at risk of unintended pregnancy. Most women in the UK obtain emergency contraception from community pharmacies that are unable to provide ongoing contraception (apart from barrier methods which have high failure rates). This means that women need an appointment with a general practitioner or at a sexual and reproductive health clinic. We conducted a pragmatic cluster randomised cohort crossover trial to determine whether or not pharmacist provision of a bridging supply of a progestogen-only pill plus the invitation to attend a sexual and reproductive health clinic resulted in increased subsequent use of effective contraception (hormonal or intrauterine). METHODS: Twenty-nine pharmacies in three UK cities recruited women receiving emergency contraception (levonorgestrel). In the intervention, women received a 3-month supply of the progestogen-only pill (75 µg of desogestrel) plus a card that provided rapid access to a local sexual and reproductive health clinic. In the control arm, pharmacists advised women to attend their usual contraceptive provider. The primary outcome was reported use of an effective contraception (hormonal and intrauterine methods) at 4 months. Process evaluation was also conducted to inform any future implementation. RESULTS: The study took place December 2017 and June 2019 and recruited 636 women to the intervention (n = 316) and control groups (n = 320). There were no statistically significant differences in demographic characteristics between the groups. Four-month follow-up data were available for 406 participants: 63% (198/315) of the control group and 65% (208/318) of the intervention group. The proportion of participants reporting use of effective contraception was 20.1% greater (95% confidence interval 5.2% to 35.0%) in the intervention group (58.4%, 95% confidence interval 48.6% to 68.2%) than in the control group (40.5%, 95% confidence interval 29.7% to 51.3%) (adjusted for recruitment period, treatment arm and centre; p = 0.011). The proportion of women using effective contraception remained statistically significantly larger, when adjusted for age, current sexual relationship and history of past use of effective contraception, and was robust to the missing data. There were no serious adverse events. CONCLUSION: Provision of a bridging supply of the progestogen-only pill with emergency contraception from a pharmacist and the invitation to a sexual and reproductive health clinic resulted in a significant increase in self-reported subsequent use of effective contraception. This simple intervention has the potential to prevent more unintended pregnancies for women after emergency contraception. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN70616901. FUNDING: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 25, No. 27. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

The emergency contraceptive pill can prevent pregnancy following unprotected sex or a burst condom; however, unless women start a regular method of contraception they remain at risk of pregnancy. Most women obtain emergency contraception from a community pharmacy (chemist), but then require an appointment with a general practitioner or at a sexual and reproductive health clinic for ongoing contraception. Getting an appointment can take time and unintended pregnancies can occur during this time. If a pharmacist could give women a small supply of a progestogen-only pill or 'mini-pill' with their emergency contraception, together with help to get an appointment at a clinic, then this might help more women to start effective contraception. We undertook a study in 29 pharmacies in Lothian, Tayside and London among women receiving emergency contraception. Pharmacists provided either their standard advice about contraception (control group) or the intervention. The intervention was a 3-month supply of the progestogen-only pill plus a rapid-access card, which, if presented at a sexual and reproductive health clinic, would help women get an appointment for contraception. The order in which the pharmacy provided either control or intervention was randomised. We conducted telephone interviews with the women 4 months later to find out what contraception they were using. A total of 636 women took part in the study, 316 in the intervention group and 320 in the control group. The proportion who said that they were using an effective method of contraception was around 20% larger in the intervention group. In addition, fewer women in this group said that they had used emergency contraception again. This study shows that community pharmacy provision of a small supply of progestogen-only pills and the invitation to attend a sexual and reproductive health clinic results in a large increase in the use of effective contraception after emergency contraception. If this became routine practice then it could help prevent unintended pregnancies.

Use of effective contraception following provision of the progestogen-only pill for women presenting to community pharmacies for emergency contraception (Bridge-It): a pragmatic cluster-randomised crossover trial.

BACKGROUND: Unless women start effective contraception after oral emergency contraception, they remain at risk of unintended pregnancy. Most women in the UK obtain emergency contraception from community pharmacies. We hypothesised that pharmacist provision of the progestogen-only pill as a bridging interim method of contraception with emergency contraception plus an invitation to a sexual and reproductive health clinic, in which all methods of contraception are available, would result in increased subsequent use of effective contraception. METHODS: We did a pragmatic cluster-randomised crossover trial in 29 UK pharmacies among women receiving levonorgestrel emergency contraception. Women aged 16 years or older, not already using hormonal contraception, not on medication that could interfere with the progestogen-only pill, and willing to give contact details for follow-up were invited to participate. In the intervention group, women received a 3-month supply of the progestogen-only pill (75 µg desogestrel) plus a rapid access card to a participating sexual and reproductive health clinic. In the control group, pharmacists advised women to attend their usual contraceptive provider. The order in which each pharmacy provided the intervention or control was randomly assigned using a computer software algorithm. The primary outcome was the use of effective contraception (hormonal or intrauterine) at 4 months. This study is registered, ISRCTN70616901 (complete). FINDINGS: Between Dec 19, 2017, and June 26, 2019, 636 women were recruited to the intervention group (316 [49·6%], mean age 22·7 years [SD 5·7]) or the control group (320 [50·3%], 22·6 years [5·1]). Three women (one in the intervention group and two in the control group) were excluded after randomisation. 4-month follow-up data were available for 406 (64%) participants, 25 were lost to follow-up, and two participants no longer wanted to participate in the study. The proportion of women using effective contraception was 20·1% greater (95% CI 5·2-35·0) in the intervention group (mean 58·4%, 48·6-68·2), than in the control group (mean 40·5%, 29·7-51·3 [adjusted for recruitment period, treatment group, and centre]; p=0·011).The difference remained significant after adjusting for age, current sexual relationship, and history of effective contraception use, and was robust to the effect of missing data (assuming missingness at random). No serious adverse events occurred. INTERPRETATION: Provision of a supply of the progestogen-only pill with emergency contraception from a community pharmacist, along with an invitation to a sexual and reproductive health clinic, results in a clinically meaningful increase in subsequent use of effective contraception. Widely implemented, this practice could prevent unintended pregnancies after use of emergency contraception. FUNDING: National Institute for Health Research (Health Technology Assessment Programme project 15/113/01).

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, hence interest in appropriate polypharmacy, where many medicines may be used to achieve better clinical outcomes for patients, is growing. This is the second update of this Cochrane Review. OBJECTIVES: To determine which interventions, alone or in combination, are effective 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 7 February 2018, together with handsearching of reference lists to identify additional studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised trials, non-randomised trials, controlled before-after studies, and interrupted time series. Eligible studies described interventions affecting prescribing aimed at improving appropriate polypharmacy in people aged 65 years and older, prescribed polypharmacy (four or more medicines), 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: Two review authors independently reviewed abstracts of eligible studies, extracted data and assessed risk of bias of 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 32 studies, 20 from this update. Included studies consisted of 18 randomised trials, 10 cluster randomised trials (one of which was a stepped-wedge design), two non-randomised trials and two controlled before-after studies. One intervention consisted of computerised decision support (CDS); and 31 were complex, multi-faceted pharmaceutical-care based approaches (i.e. the responsible provision of medicines to improve patient's outcomes), one of which incorporated a CDS component as part of their multi-faceted intervention. Interventions were provided in a variety of settings. Interventions were delivered by healthcare professionals such as general physicians, pharmacists and geriatricians, and all 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) -4.76, 95% CI -9.20 to -0.33; 5 studies, N = 517; very low-certainty evidence). It is uncertain whether pharmaceutical care reduces the number of potentially inappropriate medications (PIMs), (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.22, 95% CI -0.38 to -0.05; 7 studies; N = 1832; very low-certainty evidence). It is uncertain whether pharmaceutical care reduces the proportion of patients with one or more PIMs, (risk ratio (RR) 0.79, 95% CI 0.61 to 1.02; 11 studies; N = 3079; very low-certainty evidence). Pharmaceutical care may slightly reduce the number of potential prescribing omissions (PPOs) (SMD -0.81, 95% CI -0.98 to -0.64; 2 studies; N = 569; low-certainty evidence), however it must be noted that this effect estimate is based on only two studies, which had serious limitations in terms of risk bias. Likewise, it is uncertain whether pharmaceutical care reduces the proportion of patients with one or more PPOs (RR 0.40, 95% CI 0.18 to 0.85; 5 studies; N = 1310; very low-certainty evidence). Pharmaceutical care may make little or no difference in hospital admissions (data not pooled; 12 studies; N = 4052; low-certainty evidence). Pharmaceutical care may make little or no difference in quality of life (data not pooled; 12 studies; N = 3211; low-certainty evidence). Medication-related problems were reported in eight studies (N = 10,087) using different terms (e.g. adverse drug reactions, drug-drug interactions). No consistent intervention effect on medication-related problems was noted across studies. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: It is unclear whether interventions to improve appropriate polypharmacy, such as reviews of patients' prescriptions, resulted in clinically significant improvement; however, they may be slightly beneficial in terms of reducing potential prescribing omissions (PPOs); but this effect estimate is based on only two studies, which had serious limitations in terms of risk bias.

Clozapine and concomitant medications: Assessing the completeness and accuracy of medication records for people prescribed clozapine under shared care arrangements.

RATIONALE, AIM, AND OBJECTIVE: The objective of the study is to assess the completeness and accuracy of medication records held by stakeholders (secondary care, general practice, and community pharmacy) for clozapine consumers managed in a shared care programme. METHODS: This was an exploratory, descriptive study examining secondary and primary care medication records in a large, urban, public mental health service setting in Queensland, Australia. Consumers (18-65 years old) prescribed clozapine under shared care management with capacity to consent were eligible (n = 55) to participate. Information from medication and dispensing records was used by a pharmacist to compile a best possible medication history for each consumer. Discrepancies were identified through reconciliation of stakeholder records with the history. Discrepancies were defined as an omission, addition, or administration discrepancy (difference in dose, frequency, or clozapine brand). RESULTS: Thirty-five (63.6%) consumers consented for records to be reviewed. Overall, 32 (91.4%) consumers had at least 1 discrepancy in their records with a mean of 4.9 discrepancies per consumer. Of 172 discrepancies, 127 (73.8%) were omissions. Primarily, concomitant medicines were omitted in 19/35 (54%) of secondary care records while clozapine was omitted in 13/32 (40.6%) of community pharmacies records. CONCLUSIONS: Discrepancies were highly prevalent in the shared care medication records of clozapine consumers of this service. Where there is incomplete and inaccurate medication information, there is a risk of suboptimal clinical decision making, increasing the likelihood of adverse drug events. This study demonstrates a need for improved documentation and timely access to accurate and complete medication records for shared care stakeholders. Expanding the pharmacist's role in this setting could improve medication accuracy in documentation and related communication.

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, hence interest in appropriate polypharmacy, where many medicines may be used to achieve better clinical outcomes for patients, is growing. OBJECTIVES: This review sought to determine which interventions, alone or in combination, are effective in improving the appropriate use of polypharmacy and reducing medication-related problems in older people. SEARCH METHODS: In November 2013, for this first update, a range of literature databases including MEDLINE and EMBASE were searched, and handsearching of reference lists was performed. Search terms included 'polypharmacy', 'medication appropriateness' and 'inappropriate prescribing'. SELECTION CRITERIA: A range of study designs were eligible. Eligible studies described interventions affecting prescribing aimed at improving appropriate polypharmacy in people 65 years of age and older in which a validated measure of appropriateness was used (e.g. Beers criteria, Medication Appropriateness Index (MAI)). DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently reviewed abstracts of eligible studies, extracted data and assessed risk of bias of included studies. Study-specific estimates were pooled, and a random-effects model was used to yield summary estimates of effect and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). The GRADE (Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation) approach was used to assess the overall quality of evidence for each pooled outcome. MAIN RESULTS: Two studies were added to this review to bring the total number of included studies to 12. One intervention consisted of computerised decision support; 11 complex, multi-faceted pharmaceutical approaches to interventions were provided in a variety of settings. Interventions were delivered by healthcare professionals, such as prescribers and pharmacists. Appropriateness of prescribing was measured using validated tools, including the MAI score post intervention (eight studies), Beers criteria (four studies), STOPP criteria (two studies) and START criteria (one study). Interventions included in this review resulted in a reduction in inappropriate medication usage. Based on the GRADE approach, the overall quality of evidence for all pooled outcomes ranged from very low to low. A greater reduction in MAI scores between baseline and follow-up was seen in the intervention group when compared with the control group (four studies; mean difference -6.78, 95% CI -12.34 to -1.22). Postintervention pooled data showed a lower summated MAI score (five studies; mean difference -3.88, 95% CI -5.40 to -2.35) and fewer Beers drugs per participant (two studies; mean difference -0.1, 95% CI -0.28 to 0.09) in the intervention group compared with the control group. Evidence of the effects of interventions on hospital admissions (five studies) and of medication-related problems (six studies) was conflicting. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: It is unclear whether interventions to improve appropriate polypharmacy, such as pharmaceutical care, resulted in clinically significant improvement; however, they appear beneficial in terms of reducing inappropriate prescribing.

Assessment of factors that influence physician decision making regarding medication use in patients with dementia at the end of life.

OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to evaluate the extent to which patient-related factors and physicians' country of practice (Northern Ireland [NI] and the Republic of Ireland [RoI]) influenced decision making regarding medication use in patients with end-stage dementia. METHODS: The study utilised a factorial survey design comprising four vignettes to evaluate initiating/withholding or continuing/discontinuing specific medications in patients with dementia nearing death. Questionnaires and vignettes were mailed to all hospital physicians in geriatric medicine and to all general practitioners (GPs) in NI (November 2010) and RoI (December 2010), with a second copy provided 3 weeks after the first mailing. Logistic regression models were constructed to examine the impact of patient-related factors and physicians' country of practice on decision making. Significance was set a priori at p ≤ 0.05. Free text responses to open questions were analysed qualitatively using content analysis. RESULTS: The response rate was 20.6% (N = 662) [21.1% (N = 245) for GPs and 52.1% (N = 38) for hospital physicians in NI, 18.3% (N = 348) for GPs and 36.0% (N = 31) for hospital physicians in RoI]. There was considerable variability in decision making about initiating/withholding antibiotics and continuing/discontinuing the acetylcholinesterase inhibitor and memantine hydrochloride, and less variability in decision making regarding statins and antipsychotics. Patient place of residence and physician's country of practice had the strongest and most consistent effects on decision making although effect sizes were small. CONCLUSIONS: Further research is required into other factors that may impact upon physicians' prescribing decisions for these vulnerable patients and to clarify how the factors examined in this study influence prescribing decisions.

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, hence there is growing interest in appropriate polypharmacy, where many medicines may be used to achieve better clinical outcomes for patients. OBJECTIVES: This review sought to determine which interventions alone, or in combination, are effective in improving the appropriate use of polypharmacy and reducing medication-related problems in older people. SEARCH METHODS: A range of literature databases including MEDLINE and EMBASE were searched in addition to handsearching reference lists. Search terms included polypharmacy, Beers criteria, medication appropriateness and inappropriate prescribing. SELECTION CRITERIA: A range of study designs were eligible. Eligible studies described interventions affecting prescribing aimed at improving appropriate polypharmacy in people aged 65 years and older where a validated measure of appropriateness was used (e.g. Beers criteria or Medication Appropriateness Index - MAI). DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Three authors independently reviewed abstracts of eligible studies, extracted data and assessed risk of bias of included studies. Study specific estimates were pooled, using a random-effects model to yield summary estimates of effect and 95% confidence intervals. MAIN RESULTS: Electronic searches identified 2200 potentially relevant citations, of which 139 were examined in detail. Following assessment, 10 studies were included. One intervention was computerised decision support and nine were complex, multifaceted pharmaceutical care provided in a variety of settings. Appropriateness of prescribing was measured using the MAI score postintervention (seven studies) and/or Beers criteria (four studies). The interventions included in this review demonstrated a reduction in inappropriate medication use. A mean difference of -6.78 (95% CI -12.34 to -1.22) in the change in MAI score in favour of the intervention group (four studies). Postintervention pooled data (five studies) showed a mean reduction of -3.88 (95% CI -5.40 to -2.35) in the summated MAI score and a mean reduction of -0.06 (95% CI -0.16 to 0.04) in the number of Beers drugs per patient (three studies). Evidence of the effect of the interventions on hospital admissions (four studies) was conflicting. Medication-related problems, reported as the number of adverse drug events (three studies), reduced significantly (35%) postintervention. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: It is unclear if interventions to improve appropriate polypharmacy, such as pharmaceutical care, resulted in a clinically significant improvement; however, they appear beneficial in terms of reducing inappropriate prescribing and medication-related problems.

A cluster randomized controlled trial of an adapted U.S. model of pharmaceutical care for nursing home residents in Northern Ireland (Fleetwood Northern Ireland study): a cost-effectiveness analysis.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of an adapted U.S. model of pharmaceutical care to improve psychoactive prescribing for nursing home residents in Northern Ireland (Fleetwood NI Study). DESIGN: Economic evaluation alongside a cluster randomized controlled trial. SETTING: Nursing homes in NI randomized to intervention (receipt of the adapted model of care; n=11) or control (usual care continued; n=11). PARTICIPANTS: Residents aged 65 and older who provided informed consent (N=253; 128 intervention, 125 control) and who had full resource use data at 12 months. INTERVENTION: Trained pharmacists reviewed intervention home residents' clinical and prescribing information for 12 months, applied an algorithm that guided them in assessing the appropriateness of psychoactive medication, and worked with prescribers (general practitioners) to make changes. The control homes received usual care in which there was no pharmacist intervention. MEASUREMENTS: The proportion of residents prescribed one or more inappropriate psychoactive medications (according to standardized protocols), costs, and a cost-effectiveness acceptability curve. The latter two outcomes are the focus for this article. RESULTS: The proportions of residents receiving inappropriate psychoactive medication at 12 months in the intervention and control group were 19.5% and 50.4%, respectively. The mean cost of healthcare resources used per resident per year was $4,923 (95% confidence interval (CI)=$4,206-5,640) for the intervention group and $5,053 (95% CI=$4,328-5,779) for the control group. The probability of the intervention being cost-effective was high, even at low levels of willingness to pay to avoid a resident receiving inappropriately prescribed psychoactive medication. CONCLUSION: The Fleetwood NI model of care was more cost-effective than usual care.

Assessment of a United States pharmaceutical care model for nursing homes in the United Kingdom.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the suitability of an American model of pharmaceutical care for nursing home residents (The Fleetwood model) for application in nursing homes in the United Kingdom. METHOD: Pharmacists (those from a hospital setting or involved in prescribing support), general practitioners, nursing home managers and advocates for older people were invited to participate in semi-structured interviews or focus groups. The American Fleetwood model was explained to all participants who were asked for their views and opinions on how such a model could be adapted for use in the UK setting. All interviews and focus groups were tape-recorded, transcribed verbatim and analysed using the framework method. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: An adapted model of pharmaceutical care for use in UK nursing homes. RESULTS: There was general concern about prescribing in nursing homes, particularly in relation to psychoactive drugs. All participants were supportive of the proposed model of care and endorsed the greater involvement of pharmacists. However, participants also recognised that unlike pharmacists in the US nursing home setting for which the Fleetwood model had been developed, pharmacists implementing this approach in the UK would face major challenges in relation to access to records (medical and medication), prescribers and residents. CONCLUSION: The findings highlighted the key elements of access which will need to be considered if this model of pharmaceutical care is to be applied to nursing home residents in the UK. IMPACT OF FINDINGS ON PRACTICE: The model has been revised to take account of the challenges relating to access and will be tested in a randomised controlled trial.

Information is care: the need for data to assess the quality of care in UK nursing and residential homes.

Prescribing is the most common medical intervention experienced by elderly residents in nursing and residential care homes. However, research would suggest that these residents may be subject to poor prescribing, with excessive use of some drugs and underprescribing of potentially beneficial drugs. At a more fundamental level, there is also evidence that poor medication record-keeping for nursing home residents is prevalent in nursing homes, general practice surgeries and community pharmacies. This may increase the risk of an adverse drug event. Furthermore, there is a lack of data on prescribing in UK nursing homes, which militates against assessing the quality of drug use. Consideration needs to be given to the structures and processes currently in place in order to promote better prescribing outcomes for this vulnerable population.