Cardiometabolic risk in people under 40 years with severe mental illness: reading between the guidelines.

People with severe mental illness (SMI) have a shorter life expectancy than the rest of the population. Multimorbidity and poorer physical health contribute to this health inequality. Cardiometabolic multimorbidity confers a significant mortality risk in this population. Multimorbidity is not restricted to older people and people with SMI present with multimorbidity earlier in life. Despite this, most screening, prevention and treatment strategies target older people. People under 40 years with SMI are underserved by current guidelines for cardiovascular risk assessment and reduction. Research is needed to develop and implement interventions to reduce cardiometabolic risk in this population.

The development and validation of a medicines optimisation tool to protect the physical health of people with severe mental illness (OPTIMISE).

BACKGROUND: The life expectancy of people with severe mental illness (SMI) is shorter than those without SMI, with multimorbidity and poorer physical health contributing to health inequality. Screening tools could potentially assist the optimisation of medicines to protect the physical health of people with SMI. The aim of our research was to design and validate a medicines optimisation tool (OPTIMISE) to help clinicians to optimise physical health in people with SMI. METHODS: A review of existing published guidelines, PubMed and Medline was carried out. Literature was examined for medicines optimisation recommendations and also for reference to the management of physical illness in people with mental illness. Potential indicators were grouped according to physiological system. A multidisciplinary team with expertise in mental health and the development of screening tools agreed that 83 indicators should be included in the first draft of OPTIMISE. The Delphi consensus technique was used to develop and validate the contents. A 17-member multidisciplinary panel of experts from the UK and Ireland completed 2 rounds of Delphi consensus, rating their level of agreement to 83 prescribing indicators using a 5-point Likert scale. Indicators were accepted for inclusion in the OPTIMISE tool after achieving a median score of 1 or 2, where 1 indicated strongly agree and 2 indicated agree, and 75th centile value of ≤ 2. Interrater reliability was assessed among 4 clinicians across 20 datasets and the chance corrected level of agreement (kappa) was calculated. The kappa statistic was interpreted as poor if 0.2 or less, fair if 0.21-0.4, moderate if 0.41-0.6, substantial if 0.61-0.8, and good if 0.81-1.0. RESULTS: Consensus was achieved after 2 rounds of Delphi for 62 prescribing indicators where 53 indicators were accepted after round 1 and a further 9 indicators were accepted after round 2. Interrater reliability of OPTIMISE between physicians and pharmacists indicated a substantial level of agreement with a kappa statistic of 0.75. CONCLUSIONS: OPTIMISE is a 62 indicator medicines optimisation tool designed to assist decision making in those treating adults with SMI. It was developed using a Delphi consensus methodology and interrater reliability is substantial. OPTIMISE has the potential to improve medicines optimisation by ensuring preventative medicines are considered when clinically indicated. Further research involving the implementation of OPTIMISE is required to demonstrate its true benefit. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This article does not report the results of a health care intervention on human participants.

A systematic review of pharmacist input to metabolic syndrome screening, management and prevention.

Background Metabolic syndrome is a cluster of factors that increase the risk of cardiovascular disease and include: diabetes and prediabetes, abdominal obesity, elevated triglycerides, low high-density lipoprotein cholesterol and high blood-pressure. However, the role of the pharmacist in the metabolic syndrome has not yet been fully explored. Aim of the review This systematic review aimed to critically appraise, synthesise, and present the available evidence on pharmacists' input to the screening, prevention and management of metabolic syndrome. Method The final protocol was based on the "Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Protocols (PRISMA-P)". Studies published in English from January 2008 to March 2020 reporting any pharmacist activities in the screening, prevention or management of metabolic syndrome were included. Databases searched were Medline, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, International Pharmaceutical Abstracts, Cochrane and Google Scholar. Studies were assessed for quality by two researchers, data extracted and findings synthesised using a narrative approach. Results Of the 39,430 titles reviewed, ten studies were included (four were randomised controlled trials). Most studies focused on pharmacist input to metabolic syndrome screening and management. Screening largely involved communicating metabolic parameters to physicians. Management of metabolic syndrome described pharmacists collaborating with members of the multidisciplinary team. A positive impact was reported in all studies, including achieving metabolic syndrome parameter goals, reverting to a non-metabolic syndrome status and, improved medication adherence. The populations studied were paediatrics with risk factors, adults with comorbidities and psychiatric patients. Integration of the pharmacist within the multidisciplinary team, an easy referral process and accessibility of service were potential facilitators. Inadequate funding was the key barrier. Conclusion The studies describing pharmacist input in metabolic syndrome provide limited evidence of positive outcomes from screening and management as part of collaborative practice. Further work is required to provide more robust evidence of effectiveness and cost-effectiveness while considering key barriers.

Improving medicines management for people with dementia in primary care: a qualitative study of healthcare professionals to develop a theory-informed intervention.

BACKGROUND: People with dementia (PwD) face unique challenges with medicines management, yet little is known about these challenges from the perspectives of primary healthcare professionals, particularly general practitioners (GPs) and community pharmacists. Few medicines management interventions have been developed which are aimed at community-dwelling PwD. This study sought to develop an intervention to improve medicines management for PwD in primary care using a theory-informed approach. METHODS: Semi-structured interviews were conducted with GPs (n = 15) and community pharmacists (n = 15) to explore participants' views and experiences of medicines management for PwD, and their perceptions of barriers and facilitators to successful medicines management for PwD. The 14-domain Theoretical Domains Framework was the underpinning theoretical guide, allowing key theoretical domains to be identified and mapped to behaviour change techniques (BCTs) which are considered the 'active ingredients' of an intervention. Draft interventions were developed to operationalise selected BCTs and were presented to GPs and community pharmacists during task groups. Final selection of an intervention for feasibility testing was guided by feedback provided during these task groups and through application of the APEASE (Affordability, Practicability, Effectiveness/cost-effectiveness, Acceptability, Side-effects/safety, Equity) criteria. RESULTS: Participants expressed a number of concerns about medicines management for PwD, particularly monitoring adherence to medication regimens and conducting medication review. Two draft interventions comprising selected BCTs ('Modelling or demonstration of behaviour'; 'Salience of consequences'; 'Health consequences'; 'Social and environmental consequences'; 'Action planning'; Social support or encouragement', 'Self-monitoring of behaviour') were developed, each targeting GPs and community pharmacists. Following the task groups and discussions within the research team, the community pharmacy-based intervention was selected for future feasibility testing. The intervention will target community pharmacists to conduct a medication review (incorporating an adherence check) with a PwD, delivered as an online video demonstrating key behaviours. The video will include feedback emphasising positive outcomes of performing the behaviours. Action planning and a quick reference guide will be used as complementary intervention components. CONCLUSIONS: A community pharmacist-based intervention has been developed targeting medicines management for PwD in primary care using a systematic, theory-informed approach. Future work will determine the usability and acceptability of implementing this intervention in clinical practice.

Does potentially inappropriate prescribing predict an increased risk of admission to hospital and mortality? A longitudinal study of the 'oldest old'.

BACKGROUND: Potentially inappropriate prescribing (PIP) is associated with negative health outcomes, including hospitalisation and mortality. Life and Living in Advanced Age: a Cohort Study in New Zealand (LiLACS NZ) is a longitudinal study of Maori (the indigenous population of New Zealand) and non-Maori octogenarians. Health disparities between indigenous and non-indigenous populations are prevalent internationally and engagement of indigenous populations in health research is necessary to understand and address these disparities. Using LiLACS NZ data, this study reports the association of PIP with hospitalisations and mortality prospectively over 36-months follow-up. METHODS: PIP, from pharmacist applied criteria, was reported as potentially inappropriate medicines (PIMs) and potential prescribing omissions (PPOs). The association between PIP and hospitalisations (all-cause, cardiovascular disease-specific and ambulatory-sensitive) and mortality was determined throughout a series of 12-month follow-ups using binary logistic (hospitalisations) and Cox (mortality) regression analysis, reported as odds ratios (ORs) and hazard ratios (HRs), respectively, and the corresponding confidence intervals (CIs). RESULTS: Full demographic data were obtained for 267 Maori and 404 non-Maori at baseline, 178 Maori and 332 non-Maori at 12-months, and 122 Maori and 281 non-Maori at 24-months. The prevalence of any PIP (i.e. ≥1 PIM and/or PPO) was 66, 75 and 72% for Maori at baseline, 12-months and 24-months, respectively. In non-Maori, the prevalence of any PIP was 62, 71 and 73% at baseline, 12-months and 24-months, respectively. At each time-point, there were more PPOs than PIMs; at baseline Maori were exposed to a significantly greater proportion of PPOs compared to non-Maori (p = 0.02). In Maori: PPOs were associated with a 1.5-fold increase in hospitalisations and mortality. In non-Maori, PIMs were associated with a double risk of mortality. CONCLUSIONS: PIP was associated with an increased risk of hospitalisation and mortality in this cohort. Omissions appear more important for Maori in predicting hospitalisations, and PIMs were more important in non-Maori in predicting mortality. These results suggest understanding prescribing outcomes across and between population groups is needed and emphasises prescribing quality assessment is useful.

The development of a Core Outcome Set for medicines management interventions for people with dementia in primary care.

BACKGROUND: people with dementia (PWD), and their carers, face challenges with medicines management activities. As interventions to support medicines management for PWD are developed, consideration must be given to the outcomes chosen to measure their effectiveness. A Core Outcome Set (COS) is a minimum set of outcomes to be measured in all trials in a particular clinical area, which seeks to reduce heterogeneity of outcome reporting across trials. OBJECTIVE: to develop a COS for trials assessing the effectiveness of medicines management interventions for PWD in primary care. METHODS: a comprehensive list of outcomes was compiled through a systematic review and semi-structured interviews with PWD (n = 18), their carers (n = 15), community pharmacists (n = 15) and general practitioners (n = 15). These outcomes were rated by a Delphi panel (n = 52) on a nine-point Likert scale from 1 (limited importance) to 9 (critical) during three sequential rounds of questionnaire distribution. The Delphi panel comprised participants with expertise in dementia and medicines management, including academics and healthcare professionals. An outcome was eligible for inclusion in the COS if ≥70% of participants rated it critical and <15% of participants rated it of limited importance. RESULTS: twenty-nine outcomes identified from the systematic review and stakeholder interviews were presented to the Delphi panel. Consensus was reached on 21 outcomes, of which the 7 most highly rated were recommended for inclusion in the COS. CONCLUSION: this study used robust methodology to develop a COS for medicines management interventions for PWD. Future work should identify the most appropriate tools to measure these outcomes.

Methodological considerations in clinical outcomes assessment of pharmacy-based minor ailments management: A systematic review.

BACKGROUND: The accessibility of services within community pharmacies provides an ideal opportunity to manage minor ailments, yet over £1.1 billion is spent by the National Health Service (NHS) in the United Kingdom (UK) in managing minor ailments in high cost settings. There is a need to review the evidence base around clinical effectiveness of pharmacy-based management of minor ailments since the absence of such may lead to under-utilisation of pharmacy services and non-implementation of available pharmacy service models. This study aimed to systematically review the methodological approaches used to assess clinical outcomes of pharmacy-based management of minor ailments in the research literature. METHODS: A systematic review was conducted to identify relevant literature using the following databases: Medline, EMBASE, CINAHL, IPA, CRD, CDSR, and Google Scholar from publication year 2000 onwards. Studies were included if they evaluated clinical outcomes of pharmacy-based management of any minor ailments, with or without a comparator setting such as Emergency Departments (EDs) or general practices. Screening and selection of titles, abstracts and full texts followed by data extraction and quality assessment (QA) was conducted. Paired researchers, from the team, reviewed papers using a protocol based on the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Protocols (PRISMA-P). QA was undertaken using the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme (CASP). Reporting was conducted in accordance with PRISMA checklist and statements. RESULTS: A total of 19 studies were included. The majority of studies were observational, conducted in community pharmacies, and did not use a comparator participant group nor a comparator setting. Interventions included counselling, medicines supply and provision of advice on the management of minor ailments. One study used the randomised controlled trial (RCT) design with majority of the study utilising observational design. A range of clinical outcomes including symptom severity, pattern, resolution, and quality of life were reported. Methods used for the assessment of clinical outcomes were, overall, poorly reported. This included a lack of information on the development and validation of the data collection tools and the timing of baseline and follow-up data collection. Adverse clinical outcomes data were collected by only seven studies. CONCLUSIONS: Currently, there are methodological limitations in the studies that have sought to assess clinical outcomes of pharmacy-based management of minor ailments. Such lack of high quality evidence may contribute to failings to shift care from high cost settings, such as EDs and general practices. Generation of high quality evidence is likely to influence public choices when seeking care for minor ailments. There is scope for development of a core outcomes set specific to minor ailments management and development of a validated methodology for measuring such outcomes in a research study.

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.

Benzodiazepine and Z-drug prescribing in Ireland: analysis of national prescribing trends from 2005 to 2015.

AIMS: The aim of this study was to examine prescribing trends for benzodiazepines and Z-drugs to General Medical Services (GMS) patients in Ireland. METHODS: A repeated cross-sectional analysis of the national pharmacy claims database was conducted for GMS patients aged ≥16 years from 2005 to 2015. Prescribing rates per 1000 eligible GMS population were calculated with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Negative binomial regression was used to determine longitudinal trends and compare prescribing rates across years, gender and age groups. Duration of supply and rates of concomitant benzodiazepine and Z-drug prescribing were determined. Age (16-44, 45-64, ≥65 years) and gender trends were investigated. RESULTS: Benzodiazepine prescribing rates decreased significantly from 225.92/1000 population (95% CI 224.94-226.89) in 2005 to 166.07/1000 population (95% CI 165.38-166.75) in 2015 (P < 0.0001). Z-drug prescribing rates increased significantly from 95.36/1000 population (95% CI 94.73-96.00) in 2005 to 109.11/1000 population (95% CI 108.56-109.67) in 2015 (P = 0.048). Approximately one-third of individuals dispensed either benzodiazepines or Z-drugs were receiving long-term prescriptions (>90 days). The proportion of those receiving >1 benzodiazepine and/or Z-drug concomitantly increased from 11.9% in 2005 to 15.3% in 2015. Benzodiazepine and Z-drug prescribing rates were highest for older women (≥65 years) throughout the study period. CONCLUSIONS: Benzodiazepine prescribing to the GMS population in Ireland decreased significantly from 2005 to 2015, and was coupled with significant increases in Z-drug prescribing. The study shows that benzodiazepine and Z-drug prescribing is common in this population, with high proportions of individuals receiving long-term prescriptions. Targeted interventions are needed to reduce potentially inappropriate long-term prescribing and use of these medications in Ireland.

Patterns of multi-morbidity and prediction of hospitalisation and all-cause mortality in advanced age.

Background: multi-morbidity is associated with poor outcomes and increased healthcare utilisation. We aim to identify multi-morbidity patterns and associations with potentially inappropriate prescribing (PIP), subsequent hospitalisation and mortality in octogenarians. Methods: life and Living in Advanced Age; a Cohort Study in New Zealand (LiLACS NZ) examined health outcomes of 421 Maori (indigenous to New Zealand), aged 80-90 and 516 non-Maori, aged 85 years in 2010. Presence of 14 chronic conditions was ascertained from self-report, general practice and hospitalisation records and physical assessments. Agglomerative hierarchical cluster analysis identified clusters of participants with co-existing conditions. Multivariate regression models examined the associations between clusters and PIP, 48-month hospitalisations and mortality. Results: six clusters were identified for Maori and non-Maori, respectively. The associations between clusters and outcomes differed between Maori and non-Maori. In Maori, those in the complex multi-morbidity cluster had the highest prevalence of inappropriately prescribed medications and in cluster 'diabetes' (20% of sample) had higher risk of hospitalisation and mortality at 48-month follow-up. In non-Maori, those in the 'depression-arthritis' (17% of the sample) cluster had both highest prevalence of inappropriate medications and risk of hospitalisation and mortality. Conclusions: in octogenarians, hospitalisation and mortality are better predicted by profiles of clusters of conditions rather than the presence or absence of a specific condition. Further research is required to determine if the cluster approach can be used to target patients to optimise resource allocation and improve outcomes.

Interventions to Improve Medicines Management for People with Dementia: A Systematic Review.

BACKGROUND: The importance of optimising medicines management for people with dementia has been emphasised through research and policy. However, evidence is currently lacking regarding how to achieve this in this patient population. OBJECTIVE: The aim was to assess the effectiveness of medicines management interventions for people with dementia living in their own home or a care home, with or without nursing care. METHODS: A systematic literature search was conducted in February 2016 across six electronic databases and three trial registries. Inclusion criteria were randomised controlled trials of medicines management (prescribing, dispensing, adherence, and/or review) interventions for people with dementia living in their own homes or care homes, with or without nursing. An assessment of quality was conducted for all studies, using the Cochrane tool for assessing the risk of bias. All outcomes were considered using a narrative approach. RESULTS: Overall, 1365 articles were identified, with three studies eligible for inclusion (n = 475 participants). The studies were heterogeneous both in terms of intervention components, setting, and outcomes used. Aspects of medicines management targeted included medication review, adherence, and administration. Improvements in psychotropic prescribing were observed; however, the interventions had limited effects on other outcomes such as wellbeing, falls and dementia severity. CONCLUSION: This review highlights the limited number of studies examining medicines management interventions for people with dementia. Of the work that has been conducted to date, emphasis has been placed on psychotropic drug use. Future research must target community-dwelling dementia patients and take a holistic approach to medicines management.

Exploring the enablers and barriers to implementing the Medication Appropriateness Tool for Comorbid Health conditions during Dementia (MATCH-D) criteria in Australia: a qualitative study.

OBJECTIVES: The Medication Appropriateness Tool for Comorbid Health conditions in Dementia (MATCH-D) criteria provide expert consensus guidance about medication use for people with dementia. This study aimed to identify enablers and barriers to implementing the criteria in practice. SETTING: Participants came from both rural and metropolitan communities in two Australian states. PARTICIPANTS: Focus groups were held with consumers, general practitioners, nurses and pharmacists. OUTCOMES: data were analysed thematically. RESULTS: Nine focus groups were conducted. Fifty-five participants validated the content of MATCH-D, appraising them as providing patient-centred principles of care. Participants identified potential applications (including the use of MATCH-D as a discussion aid or educational tool for consumers about medicines) and suggested supporting resources. CONCLUSION: Participants provided insights into applying MATCH-D in practice and suggested resources to be included in an accompanying toolkit. These data provide external validation of MATCH-D and an empiric basis for their translation to practice. Following resource development, we plan to evaluate the feasibility and efficacy of implementation in practice.

Theory-Based Interventions to Improve Medication Adherence in Older Adults Prescribed Polypharmacy: A Systematic Review.

BACKGROUND: Previous interventions have shown limited success in improving medication adherence in older adults, and this may be due to the lack of a theoretical underpinning. OBJECTIVE: This review sought to determine the effectiveness of theory-based interventions aimed at improving medication adherence in older adults prescribed polypharmacy and to explore the extent to which psychological theory informed their development. DATA SOURCES: Eight electronic databases were searched from inception to March 2015, and extensive hand-searching was conducted. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: Interventions delivered to older adults (populations with a mean/median age of ≥65 years) prescribed polypharmacy (four or more regular oral/non-oral medicines) were eligible. Studies had to report an underpinning theory and measure at least one adherence and one clinical/humanistic outcome. REVIEW METHODS: Data were extracted independently by two reviewers and included details of intervention content, delivery, providers, participants, outcomes and theories used. The theory coding scheme (TCS) was used to assess the extent of theory use. RESULTS: Five studies cited theory as the basis for intervention development (social cognitive theory, health belief model, transtheoretical model, self-regulation model). The extent of theory use and intervention effectiveness in terms of adherence and clinical/humanistic outcomes varied across studies. No study made optimal use of theory as recommended in the TCS. CONCLUSIONS: The heterogeneity observed and inclusion of pilot designs mean conclusions regarding effectiveness of theory-based interventions targeting older adults prescribed polypharmacy could not be drawn. Further primary research involving theory as a central component of intervention development is required. The review findings will help inform the design of future theory-based adherence interventions.

Development of an intervention to improve appropriate polypharmacy in older people in primary care using a theory-based method.

BACKGROUND: It is advocated that interventions to improve clinical practice should be developed using a systematic approach and intervention development methods should be reported. However, previous interventions aimed at ensuring that older people receive appropriate polypharmacy have lacked details on their development. This study formed part of a multiphase research project which aimed to develop an intervention to improve appropriate polypharmacy in older people in primary care. METHODS: The target behaviours for the intervention were prescribing and dispensing of appropriate polypharmacy to older patients by general practitioners (GPs) and community pharmacists. Intervention development followed a systematic approach, including previous mapping of behaviour change techniques (BCTs) to key domains from the Theoretical Domains Framework that were perceived by GPs and pharmacists to influence the target behaviours. Draft interventions were developed to operationalise selected BCTs through team discussion. Selection of an intervention for feasibility testing was guided by a subset of the APEASE (Affordability, Practicability, Effectiveness/cost-effectiveness, Acceptability, Side-effects/safety, Equity) criteria. RESULTS: Three draft interventions comprising selected BCTs were developed, targeting patients, pharmacists and GPs, respectively. Following assessment of each intervention using a subset of the APEASE criteria (affordability, practicability, acceptability), the GP-targeted intervention was selected for feasibility testing. This intervention will involve a demonstration of the behaviour and will be delivered as an online video. The video demonstrating how GPs can prescribe appropriate polypharmacy during a typical consultation with an older patient will also demonstrate salience of consequences (feedback emphasising the positive outcomes of performing the behaviour). Action plans and prompts/cues will be used as complementary intervention components. The intervention is designed to facilitate the prescribing of appropriate polypharmacy in routine practice. CONCLUSION: A GP-targeted intervention to improve appropriate polypharmacy in older people has been developed using a systematic approach. Intervention content has been specified using an established taxonomy of BCTs and selected to maximise feasibility. The results of a future feasibility study will help to determine if the theory-based intervention requires further refinement before progressing to a larger scale randomised evaluation.

A cross-sectional evaluation of community pharmacists' perceptions of intermediate care and medicines management across the healthcare interface.

Background Despite the importance placed on the concept of the multidisciplinary team in relation to intermediate care (IC), little is known about community pharmacists' (CPs) involvement. Objective To determine CPs' awareness of and involvement with IC services, perceptions of the transfer of patients' medication information between healthcare settings and views of the development of a CP-IC service. Setting Community pharmacies in Northern Ireland. Methods A postal questionnaire, informed by previous qualitative work was developed and piloted. Main outcome measure CPs' awareness of and involvement with IC. Results The response rate was 35.3 % (190/539). Under half (47.4 %) of CPs 'agreed/strongly agreed' that they understood the term 'intermediate care'. Three quarters of respondents were either not involved or unsure if they were involved with providing services to IC. A small minority (1.2 %) of CPs reported that they received communication regarding medication changes made in hospital or IC settings 'all of the time'. Only 9.5 and 0.5 % of respondents 'strongly agreed' that communication from hospital and IC, respectively, was sufficiently detailed. In total, 155 (81.6 %) CPs indicated that they would like to have greater involvement with IC services. 'Current workload' was ranked as the most important barrier to service development. Conclusion It was revealed that CPs had little awareness of, or involvement with, IC. Communication of information relating to patients' medicines between settings was perceived as insufficient, especially between IC and community pharmacy settings. CPs demonstrated willingness to be involved with IC and services aimed at bridging the communication gap between healthcare settings.

A change in behaviour: getting the balance right for research and policy.

Behaviour change interventions offer clinical pharmacists many opportunities to optimise the use of medicines. 'MINDSPACE' is a framework used by a Government-affiliated organisation in the United Kingdom to communicate an approach to changing behaviour through policy. The Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF) organises constructs of psychological theories that are most relevant to behaviour change into 14 domains. Both frameworks offer a way of identifying what drives a change in behaviour, providing a target for an intervention. This article aims to compare and contrast MINDSPACE and the TDF, and serves to inform pharmacy practitioners about the potential strengths and weaknesses of using either framework in a clinical pharmacy context. It appears that neither framework can deliver evidence-based interventions that can be developed and implemented with the pace demanded by policy and practice-based settings. A collaborative approach would ensure timely development of acceptable behaviour change interventions that are grounded in evidence.

Potentially inappropriate prescribing in two populations with differing socio-economic profiles: a cross-sectional database study using the PROMPT criteria.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study is to establish the prevalence of potentially inappropriate prescribing (PIP) in middle-aged adults (45-64 years) in two populations with differing socio-economic profiles, and to investigate factors associated with PIP, using the PROMPT (PRescribing Optimally in Middle-aged People's Treatments) criteria. METHODS: A retrospective cross-sectional study was conducted using 2012 data from the Enhanced Prescribing Database (EPD), covering the full population in Northern Ireland and the Health Services Executive Primary Care Reimbursement Service (HSE-PCRS) database, covering the most socio-economically deprived third of the population in this age group in the Republic of Ireland. The prevalence for each PROMPT criterion and overall prevalence of PIP were calculated. Logistic regression was used to investigate the association between PIP and gender, age group and polypharmacy. RESULTS: This study included 441,925 patients from the EPD and 309,748 patients from the HSE-PCRS database. Polypharmacy was common in both datasets (46.7 % in the HSE-PCRS and 20.3 % in the EPD). The prevalence of PIP was 42.9 % (95%CI 42.7, 43.1) in the HSE-PCRS and 21.1 % (95%CI 21.0, 21.2) in the EPD. Age group, female gender and polypharmacy were significantly associated with PIP in both populations (p < 0.05) and polypharmacy had the strongest association. CONCLUSIONS: PIP is common amongst middle-aged people with the risk of PIP increasing with polypharmacy. Differences in the prevalence of polypharmacy and PIP between the two populations may relate to heterogeneity in healthcare services and different socio-economic profiles, with higher rates of multimorbidity and associated polypharmacy in more deprived groups.

Making the case for change: What researchers need to consider when designing behavior change interventions aimed at improving medication dispensing.

There is a growing emphasis on behavior change in intervention development programmes aimed at improving public health and healthcare professionals' practice. A number of frameworks and methodological tools have been established to assist researchers in developing interventions seeking to change healthcare professionals' behaviors. The key features of behavior change intervention design involve specifying the target group (i.e. healthcare professional or patient cohort), the target behavior and identifying mediators (i.e. barriers and facilitators) of behavior change. Once the target behavior is clearly specified and understood, specific behavior change techniques can then be used as the basis of the intervention to target identified mediators of behavior change. This commentary outlines the challenges for pharmacy practice-based researchers in targeting dispensing as a behavior when developing behavior change interventions aimed at pharmacists and proposes a definition of dispensing to consider in future research.

"It's very complicated": a qualitative study of medicines management in intermediate care facilities in Northern Ireland.

BACKGROUND: Intermediate care (IC) describes a range of services targeted at older people, aimed at preventing unnecessary hospitalisation, promoting faster recovery from illness and maximising independence. Older people are at increased risk of medication-related adverse events, but little is known about the provision of medicines management services in IC facilities. This study aimed to describe the current provision of medicines management services in IC facilities in Northern Ireland (NI) and to explore healthcare workers' (HCWs) and patients' views of, and attitudes towards these services and the IC concept. METHODS: Semi-structured interviews were conducted, recorded, transcribed verbatim and analysed using a constant comparative approach with HCWs and patients from IC facilities in NI. RESULTS: Interviews were conducted with 25 HCWs and 18 patients from 12 IC facilities in NI. Three themes were identified: 'concept and reality', 'setting and supply' and 'responsibility and review'. A mismatch between the concept of IC and the reality was evident. The IC facility setting dictated prescribing responsibilities and the supply of medicines, presenting challenges for HCWs. A lack of a standardised approach to responsibility for the provision of medicines management services including clinical review was identified. Whilst pharmacists were not considered part of the multidisciplinary team, most HCWs recognised a need for their input. Medicines management was not a concern for the majority of IC patients. CONCLUSIONS: Medicines management services are not integral to IC and medicine-related challenges are frequently encountered. Integration of pharmacists into the multidisciplinary team could potentially improve medicines management in IC.

Doctors' perspectives on the barriers to appropriate prescribing in older hospitalized patients: a qualitative study.

AIMS: Older patients commonly suffer from multimorbidites and take multiple medications. As a result, these patients are more vulnerable to potentially inappropriate prescribing (PIP). PIP in older patients may result in adverse drug events (ADEs) and hospitalizations. However, little has been done to identify why PIP occurs. The objectives of this study were (i) to identify hospital doctors' perceptions as to why PIP occurs, (ii) to identify the barriers to addressing the issues identified and (iii) to determine which intervention types would be best suited to improving prescribing. METHODS: Semi-structured interviews based on the Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF), a tool used to apply behaviour change theories, were conducted with 22 hospital doctors. Content analysis was conducted to identify domains of the TDF that could be targeted to improve prescribing for older people. These domains were then mapped to the behaviour change wheel to identify possible intervention types. RESULTS: Content analysis identified five of the 12 domains in the TDF as relevant: (i) environmental context and resources, (ii) knowledge, (iii) skills, (iv) social influences and (v) memory/attention and decision processes. Using the behaviour change wheel, the types of interventions deemed suitable were those based on training and environmental restructuring. CONCLUSION: This study shows that doctors feel there is insufficient emphasis on geriatric pharmacotherapy in their undergraduate/postgraduate training. An intervention providing supplementary training, with particular emphasis on decision processes and dealing with social influences would be justified. This study has, however, uncovered many areas for potential intervention in the future.