Deprescribing Education vs Usual Care for Patients With Cognitive Impairment and Primary Care Clinicians: The OPTIMIZE Pragmatic Cluster Randomized Trial.

Background: Individuals with dementia or mild cognitive impairment frequently have multiple chronic conditions (defined as ≥2 chronic medical conditions) and take multiple medications, increasing their risk for adverse outcomes. Deprescribing (reducing or stopping medications for which potential harms outweigh potential benefits) may decrease their risk of adverse outcomes. Objective: To examine the effectiveness of increasing patient and clinician awareness about the potential to deprescribe unnecessary or risky medications among patients with dementia or mild cognitive impairment. Design, Setting, and Participants: This pragmatic, patient-centered, 12-month cluster randomized clinical trial was conducted from April 1, 2019, to March 31, 2020, at 18 primary care clinics in a not-for-profit integrated health care delivery system. The study included 3012 adults aged 65 years or older with dementia or mild cognitive impairment who had 1 or more additional chronic medical conditions and were taking 5 or more long-term medications. Interventions: An educational brochure and a questionnaire on attitudes toward deprescribing were mailed to patients prior to a primary care visit, clinicians were notified about the mailing, and deprescribing tip sheets were distributed to clinicians at monthly clinic meetings. Main Outcomes and Measures: The number of prescribed long-term medications and the percentage of individuals prescribed 1 or more potentially inappropriate medications (PIMs). Analysis was performed on an intention-to-treat basis. Results: This study comprised 1433 individuals (806 women [56.2%]; mean [SD] age, 80.1 [7.2] years) in 9 intervention clinics and 1579 individuals (874 women [55.4%]; mean [SD] age, 79.9 [7.5] years) in 9 control clinics who met the eligibility criteria. At baseline, both groups were prescribed a similar mean (SD) number of long-term medications (7.0 [2.1] in the intervention group and 7.0 [2.2] in the control group), and a similar proportion of individuals in both groups were taking 1 or more PIMs (437 of 1433 individuals [30.5%] in the intervention group and 467 of 1579 individuals [29.6%] in the control group). At 6 months, the adjusted mean number of long-term medications was similar in the intervention and control groups (6.4 [95% CI, 6.3-6.5] vs 6.5 [95% CI, 6.4-6.6]; P = .14). The estimated percentages of patients in the intervention and control groups taking 1 or more PIMs were similar (17.8% [95% CI, 15.4%-20.5%] vs 20.9% [95% CI, 18.4%-23.6%]; P = .08). In preplanned subgroup analyses, adjusted differences between the intervention and control groups were -0.16 (95% CI, -0.34 to 0.01) for individuals prescribed 7 or more long-term medications at baseline (n = 1434) and -0.03 (95% CI, -0.20 to 0.13) for those prescribed 5 to 6 medications (n = 1578) (P = .28 for interaction; P = .19 for subgroup interaction for PIMs). Conclusions and Relevance: This large-scale educational deprescribing intervention for older adults with cognitive impairment taking 5 or more long-term medications and their primary care clinicians demonstrated small effect sizes and did not significantly reduce the number of long-term medications and PIMs. Such interventions should target older adults taking relatively more medications. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03984396.

Aligning care with the personal values of patients with complex care needs.

OBJECTIVE: To identify opportunities to align care with the personal values of patients from three distinct groups with complex medical, behavioral, and social needs. DATA SOURCES/STUDY SETTING: Between June and August 2019, we conducted semi-structured interviews with individuals with complex care needs in two integrated health care delivery systems. STUDY DESIGN: Qualitative study using semi-structured interviews. DATA COLLECTION METHODS: We interviewed three groups of patients at Kaiser Permanente Washington and Kaiser Permanente Colorado representing three distinct profiles of complex care needs: Group A ("obesity, opioid prescription, and low-resourced neighborhood"), Group B ("older, high medical morbidity, emergency department, and hospital use"), and Group C ("older, mental and physical health concerns, and low-resourced neighborhood"). These profiles were identified based on prior work and prioritized by internal primary care stakeholders. Interview transcripts were analyzed using thematic analysis. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: Twenty-four patients participated; eight from each complex needs profile. Mean age across groups was 71 (range 48-86) years. We identified five themes common across the three groups that captured patients' views regarding values-aligned care. These themes focused on the importance of care teams exploring and acknowledging a patient's values, providing access to nonphysician providers who have different perspectives on care delivery, offering values-aligned mental health care, ensuring connection to community-based resources that support values and address needs, and providing care that supports the patient plus their family and caregivers. CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest several opportunities to improve how care is delivered to patients with different complex medical, behavioral, and social needs. Future research is needed to better understand how to incorporate these opportunities into health care.

Addressing logistical barriers to childhood vaccination using an automated reminder system and online resource intervention: A randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: As the rates of vaccination decline in children with logistical barriers to vaccination, new strategies to increase vaccination are needed. The goal of this study was to develop and evaluate the effectiveness of the Vaccines For Babies (VFB) intervention, an automated reminder system with online resources to address logistical barriers to vaccination in caregivers of children enrolled in an integrated healthcare system. Effectiveness was evaluated in a randomized controlled trial. METHODS: Qualitative interviews were conducted with parents of children less than two years old to identify logistical barriers to vaccination that were used to develop the VFB intervention. VFB included automated reminders to schedule the 6- and 12-month vaccine visit linking caregivers to resources to address logistic barriers, sent to the preferred mode of outreach (text, email, and/or phone). Parents of children between 3 and 10 months of age with indicators of logistical barriers to vaccination were randomized to receive VFB or usual well child care (UC). The primary outcome was percentage of days undervaccinated at 2 years of life. A difference in differences analysis was conducted. RESULTS: Qualitative interviews with 6 parents of children less than 2 years of age identified transportation, scheduling challenges, and knowledge of vaccine timing as logistical barriers to vaccination. We enrolled 250 participants in the trial, 45% were loss to follow-up. There were no significant differences in vaccination uptake between those enrolled in UC or the VFB intervention (0.51%, p = 0.86). In Medicaid enrolled participants, there was a modest decrease in percentage of days undervaccinated in the VFB intervention compared to UC (6.3%, p = 0.07). CONCLUSION: Automated Reminders and with links to heath system resources was not shown to increase infant vaccination uptake demonstrating additional resources are needed to address the needs of caregivers experiencing logistical barriers to vaccination.