A stewardship program to facilitate anticholinergic and sedative medication deprescribing using the drug burden index in electronic medical records.

AIMS: The drug burden index (DBI) measures a person's total exposure to anticholinergic and sedative medications, which are commonly associated with harm. Through incorporating the DBI in electronic medical records (eMR) and implementing a DBI stewardship program, we aimed to determine (i) uptake of the steward's recommendations to deprescribe anticholinergic and/or sedative drugs by the medical team and (ii) whether accepted recommendations were actioned in hospital or recommended for follow-up by the General Practitioner post-discharge. METHODS: A single-arm, non-randomised feasibility study was performed at an Australian tertiary referral metropolitan hospital. The stewardship pharmacist reviewed eMRs of patients aged ≥75 years with DBI scores > 0, during admission. The steward identified and discussed potential opportunities to deprescribe anticholinergic and/or sedative medications with the medical registrars. RESULTS: Amongst 256 patients reviewed, the steward made 170 recommendations for 117 patients. Registrars agreed with 141 recommendations (82.9%) for 95 patients (81.2%), and actioned 115 deprescribing recommendations for 80 patients, most commonly for antidepressants and opioids. The 115 actioned recommendations resulted in 125 changes, with 44 changes to the inpatient drug chart and 81 additional changes recommended post-discharge in the discharge summary. CONCLUSION: Opportunities exist for deprescribing anticholinergic and sedative medications in older inpatients and a DBI stewardship program may help implement these. It is important to capture different outcomes of deprescribing interventions, including in-hospital medication changes, recommendations in the Discharge Summary, sustainability of deprescribing and clinical outcomes.

Towards Optimizing Hospitalized Older adults' MEdications (TO HOME): Multi-centre study of medication use and outcomes in routine care.

AIMS: Comprehensively investigate prescribing in usual care of hospitalized older people with respect to polypharmacy; potentially inappropriate medications (PIMs) according to Beers criteria; and cumulative anticholinergic and sedative medication exposure calculated with Drug Burden Index (DBI). Specifically, to quantify exposure to these measures on admission, changes between admission and discharge, associations with adverse outcomes and medication costs. METHODS: Established new retrospective inpatient cohort of 2000 adults aged ≥75 years, consecutively admitted to 6 hospitals in Sydney, Australia, with detailed information on medications, clinical characteristics and outcomes. Conducted cross-sectional analyses of index admission data from cohort. RESULTS: Cohort had mean (standard deviation) age 86.0 (5.8) years, 59% female, 21% from residential aged care. On admission, prevalence of polypharmacy was 77%, PIMs 34% and DBI > 0 in 53%. From admission to discharge, mean difference (95% confidence interval) in total number of medications increased 1.05 (0.92, 1.18); while prevalence of exposure to PIMs (-3.8% [-5.4, -2.1]) and mean DBI score (-0.02 [-0.04, -0.01]) decreased. PIMs and DBI score were associated with increased risks (adjusted odds ratio [95% confidence interval]) of falls (PIMs 1.63 [1.28, 2.08]; DBI score 1.21[1.00, 1.46]) and delirium (PIMs 1.76 [1.38, 1.46]; DBI score 1.42 [1.19, 1.71]). Each measure was associated with increased risk of adverse drug reactions (polypharmacy 1.42 [1.19, 1.71]; PIMs 1.87 [1.40, 2.49]; DBI score 1.90 [1.55, 2.15]). Cost (AU$/patient/hospital day) of medications contributing to PIMs and DBI was low ($0.29 and $0.88). CONCLUSION: In this large cohort of older inpatients, usual hospital care results in an increase in number of medications and small reductions in PIMs and DBI, with variable associations with adverse outcomes.

Communicating deprescribing decisions made in hospital with general practitioners in the community.

BACKGROUND: Deprescribing, the supervised withdrawal of inappropriate medications, intends to manage polypharmacy, which is prevalent in older patients. AIMS: To examine general practitioner (GP) perceptions of communication processes between clinicians in hospital and GP in the community about deprescribing decisions made in hospital. METHODS: Focus groups and interviews were held with 15 GP, exploring deprescribing in hospitals, communication of deprescribing information and the format of communications. Sessions were audiotaped, transcribed and analysed using an inductive approach. RESULTS: GP stated that they should be involved in deprescribing decisions, especially for older complex patients, because of their good knowledge of their patients. Barriers to effective communication included the acute nature of hospital stays and lack of time. Facilitators included long-term relationships of GP with their patients and engaged patients. GP preferred communication of deprescribing decisions to be over the telephone while the patient was still in hospital, and with a concise, electronic discharge summary at the time of discharge. GP indicated that rationale for medication changes and recommended follow-up actions were crucial in a discharge summary to enable care post-discharge. CONCLUSIONS: GP welcome increased communication with hospital clinicians regarding deprescribing decisions made while patients are in hospital. Communication needs to be timely, transparent, succinct and accessible. Lack of time and difficulties contacting hospital clinicians challenge this process.

The outcomes of considering goals of care in medication reviews for older adults: a systematic review.

INTRODUCTION: This is a systematic review of prescribing, clinical, patient-reported, and health utilization outcomes of goal-directed medication reviews in older adults. METHODS: A systematic review was conducted using MEDLINE, EMBASE, SCOPUS and CINAHL databases to identify studies examining outcomes of goal-directed medication reviews in humans, with mean/median age ≥ 60 years and in English. RESULTS: Seventeen out of 743 articles identified were included. Whilst there were inconsistent findings regarding changes in the number of medications between groups or post-intervention in one group (n = 6 studies), studies found reductions in drug-related problems (n = 2) and potential to reduce anticholinergics and sedatives (n = 2). Two out of seven studies investigating clinical outcomes found improvements, such as reduced hospital readmissions and improved depression severity. One study found 75% of patients achieved ≥ 1 goals and another found 43% of goals were achieved at six months. Four out of five studies found significant improvements in patient-reported quality of life between groups (n = 2) or post-intervention in one group (n = 2). Both studies investigating cost-effectiveness reported the intervention was cost-effective. CONCLUSIONS: There is evidence of positive impact on medication rationalization, quality of life and cost-effectiveness, supporting goal-directed medication reviews. Larger, longitudinal studies, exploring patient-focused outcomes may provide further insights into the ongoing impact of goal-directed medication reviews.

Comparison of a multidomain frailty index from routine health data with the hospital frailty risk score in older patients in an Australian hospital.

BACKGROUND: Frailty is an important determinant of health-care needs and outcomes for people in hospital. OBJECTIVES: To compare characteristics and predictive ability of a multidomain frailty index derived from routine health data (electronic frailty index-acute hospital; eFI-AH) with the hospital frailty risk score (HFRS). METHODS: This retrospective study included 6771 patients aged ≥75 years admitted to an Australian metropolitan tertiary referral hospital between October 2019 and September 2020. The eFI-AH and the HFRS were calculated for each patient and compared with respect to characteristics, agreement, association with age and ability to predict outcomes. RESULTS: Median eFI-AH was 0.17 (range 0-0.66) whilst median HFRS was 3.2 (range 0-42.9). Moderate agreement was shown between the tools (Pearson's r 0.61). After adjusting for age and gender, both models had associations with long hospital stay, in-hospital mortality, unplanned all-cause readmission and fall-related readmission. Specifically, the eFI-AH had the strongest association with in-hospital mortality (adjusted odds ratio (aOR) 2.81, 95% confidence intervals (CI) 2.49-3.17), whilst the HFRS was most strongly associated with long hospital stay (aOR 1.20, 95% CI 1.18-1.21). Both tools predicted hospital stay >10 days with good discrimination and calibration. CONCLUSIONS: Although the eFI-AH and the HFRS did not consistently identify the same inpatients as frail, both were associated with adverse outcomes and they had comparable predictive ability for prolonged hospitalisation. These two constructs of frailty may have different implications for clinical practice and health service provision and planning.

Deprescribing for older people living in residential aged care facilities: Pharmacist recommendations, doctor acceptance and implementation.

BACKGROUND: Deprescribing is an intervention to address the high prevalence of inappropriate polypharmacy in older people living in residential aged care facilities (RACFs). Many deprescribing interventions are complex and involve several stages including initial pharmacist recommendation, subsequent acceptance of the recommendations by a prescriber and the patient, and then actual implementation. OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to investigate pharmacist deprescribing recommendations for residents within RACFs, general practitioner (GP) acceptance, and the actual implementation of the accepted recommendations at 12-month. METHODS: The intervention occurred as part of a randomised controlled trial and comprised a pharmacist-led medication review using an evidence-based algorithm, with the focus on identifying medications to potentially deprescribe. Consent to participate was obtained from residents (or surrogate decision-makers), RACF nursing staff and the resident's GP. Deprescribing recommendations were reviewed by GPs before implementation as part of the intervention and control arms of the trial, although control group participants continued to receive their usual medications in a blinded manner. RESULTS: There were 303 participants enrolled in the study, and 77% (941/1222) of deprescribing recommendations suggested by the pharmacists were accepted by GPs. Of the recommendations accepted by GPs, 74% (692/ 941) were successfully implemented at the end of the follow-up visit at 12 months. The most common reason for deprescribing was because medications were no longer needed (42%, 513/ 1231). CONCLUSION: Pharmacist-led deprescribing recommendations arising from an algorithm-based medication review are acceptable to doctors and can have a significant impact on reducing the number of inappropriate medications consumed by older people in RACFs. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry ACTRN12613001204730.

Impact of a Comprehensive Intervention Bundle Including the Drug Burden Index on Deprescribing Anticholinergic and Sedative Drugs in Older Acute Inpatients: A Non-randomised Controlled Before-and-After Pilot Study.

INTRODUCTION: Implementation of the Drug Burden Index (DBI) as a risk assessment tool in clinical practice may facilitate deprescribing. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study is to evaluate how a comprehensive intervention bundle using the DBI impacts (i) the proportion of older inpatients with at least one DBI-contributing medication stopped or dose reduced on discharge, compared with admission; and (ii) the changes in deprescribing of different DBI-contributing medication classes during hospitalisation. METHODS: This before-and-after study was conducted in an Australian metropolitan tertiary referral hospital. Patients aged ≥ 75 years admitted to the acute aged care service for ≥ 48 h from December 2020 to October 2021 and prescribed DBI-contributing medication were included. During the control period, usual care was provided. During the intervention, access to the intervention bundle was added, including a clinician interface displaying DBI score in the electronic medical record. In a subsequent 'stewardship' period, a stewardship pharmacist used the bundle to provide clinicians with patient-specific recommendations on deprescribing of DBI-contributing medications. RESULTS: Overall, 457 hospitalisations were included. The proportion of patients with at least one DBI-contributing medication stopped/reduced on discharge increased from 29.9% (control period) to 37.5% [intervention; adjusted risk difference (aRD) 6.5%, 95% confidence intervals (CI) -3.2 to 17.5%] and 43.1% (stewardship; aRD 12.1%, 95% CI 1.0-24.0%). The proportion of opioid prescriptions stopped/reduced rose from 17.9% during control to 45.7% during stewardship (p = 0.04). CONCLUSION: Integrating a comprehensive intervention bundle and accompanying stewardship program is a promising strategy to facilitate deprescribing of sedative and anticholinergic medications in older inpatients.

Deprescribing perceptions and practice reported by multidisciplinary hospital clinicians after, and by medical students before and after, viewing an e-learning module.

BACKGROUND: There are many barriers to deprescribing in the routine care of older inpatients with polypharmacy. Implementation is limited by factors related to clinicians, patients, and the acute care setting. A short (11 min) e-learning module for multidisciplinary hospital clinicians was developed to address two commonly reported barriers: awareness of polypharmacy and self-efficacy in deprescribing. OBJECTIVES: 1) Describe the level of awareness of polypharmacy and self-efficacy of deprescribing in multi-disciplinary hospital clinicians following completion of an online e-learning module; and 2) describe the immediate impact of an online educational module in awareness and self-efficacy of polypharmacy and deprescribing in senior medical students. METHODS: A questionnaire was developed and administered to hospital clinicians following completion of the e-learning module. Senior medical students undertook the questionnaire pre- and post-module. RESULTS: Overall, 99 hospital clinicians with diverse clinical roles, experience, and ages, and 30 medical students completed the questionnaire. Although most (≥80%) hospital clinicians reported a general awareness of polypharmacy and deprescribing, there was moderate to low current activity in medication review and deprescribing, a perceived lack of role in medication review by junior doctors, and minimal knowledge of deprescribing tools. Use of a previously validated self-efficacy questionnaire showed lowest self-efficacy in domains related to developing deprescribing plans and implementing them. Pre-post analysis of medical student responses found a small statistically significant improvement following viewing the module in awareness of polypharmacy, deprescribing and deprescribing tools, perception of their role in deprescribing, and self-efficacy in planning and implementation of deprescribing decisions. CONCLUSIONS: Hospital clinicians and senior medical students had limited self-efficacy in deprescribing and hospital clinicians reported they did not deprescribe frequently. Targets for educational and behavioral interventions were identified. A short e-learning module on polypharmacy and deprescribing may be a useful component of a multi-strategic intervention to implement deprescribing into routine inpatient care.

Development and validation of a frailty index based on data routinely collected across multiple domains in NSW hospitals.

OBJECTIVE(S): To develop and validate a frailty index (FI) that covers multiple domains, using routine hospital data. To investigate the FI's validity, after excluding medication-related items (FI-ExMeds), for studies of frailty and polypharmacy. METHODS: A FI was derived from routine NSW hospital data following standard published guidance. In a development cohort (151 inpatients ≥ 70 years), the FI was correlated with the Reported Edmonton Frail Scale (REFS) using Pearson's R. Validity and distribution of FI and FI-ExMeds, and correlation with each other, were evaluated in a validation cohort (999 inpatients ≥ 75 years). RESULTS: The mean FI for the development cohort was 0.27 (SD 0.09). The FI showed moderate linear correlation with the REFS (n = 148, R = 0.52, P < .001). In the validation cohort, mean FI (n = 993) and FI-ExMeds (n = 990) were both 0.28 (SD 0.11). FI-ExMeds showed high linear correlation with the FI (n = 990, R = 0.99, P < .001). CONCLUSION: This multi-domain FI is comparable to REFS, with adequate redundancy to exclude deficits for specific analyses.

Attitudes to Drug Use in Residential Aged Care Facilities: A Cross-Sectional Survey of Nurses and Care Staff.

BACKGROUND: Residential aged care facility (RACF) staff are well placed to identify opportunities for more appropriate prescribing. However, little is known about their views of polypharmacy, deprescribing and specific medications. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to establish the beliefs and attitudes of RACF staff towards polypharmacy and medication use in residents. METHODS: A cross-sectional survey was conducted on RACF staff in metropolitan New South Wales, Australia using a self-administered questionnaire. The questionnaire was drafted based on the available literature and research team expertise and then piloted by a mixed group of 13 RACF staff. The final version of the questionnaire consisted of 28 questions. A total of 38 RACFs were contacted about the study. The questionnaire was distributed to eligible RACF staff between October 2017 and October 2019. The RACF staff were eligible if they provided direct patient care to residents or worked as a facility manager. Participants were excluded if they had insufficient English language skills. The results were presented in two groups, the nursing and care staff, using descriptive statistics. RESULTS: A total of 176 individuals from nine RACFs completed the questionnaire of whom 160 were eligible for study inclusion. Most considered polypharmacy to be five or more different tablets and capsules per day (95% nursing and 82% care staff respectively). A wide range of beliefs about medication use and deprescribing that centred on what constitutes appropriate polypharmacy was identified. Most thought that preventive medications were essential for residents. Most nurses agreed that sleeping tablets and pharmacological management of verbal aggression and wandering behaviours should be used less frequently whilst most care staff agreed that medications should be used more frequently to manage physical aggression. CONCLUSIONS: To successfully and sustainably optimise medication use in RACF residents, it is important to consider the variation in views of nurses and care staff.

Delivering the right information to the right person at the right time to facilitate deprescribing in hospital: a mixed methods multisite study to inform decision support design in Australia.

OBJECTIVES: To inform the design of electronic decision support (EDS) to facilitate deprescribing in hospitals we set out to (1) explore the current processes of in-hospital medicines review, deprescribing and communication of deprescribing decisions with the patient's general practitioner (GP), (2) identify barriers to undertaking these tasks and (3) determine user preferences for EDS. DESIGN: Multimethod, multisite study comprising observations, semistructured interviews and focus groups. SETTING: General medicine, geriatric medicine and rehabilitation wards at six hospitals in two local health districts in Sydney, Australia and primary care practices in one primary healthcare district in Sydney, Australia. PARTICIPANTS: 149 participants took part in observations, interviews and focus groups, including 69 hospital doctors, 13 nurses, 55 pharmacists and 12 GPs. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Observational data on who was involved in medicines review and deprescribing, when medicines review took place, and what artefacts (eg, forms) were used. Participants reported perceptions of medicines review, polypharmacy and deprescribing and preferences for EDS. RESULTS: Deprescribing, undertaken during medicines review, was typically performed by a junior doctor, following a decision to deprescribe by a senior doctor. Key barriers to deprescribing included a perception that deprescribing was not the responsibility of hospital doctors, a lack of confidence among junior doctors and pharmacists in broaching this topic with senior doctors and a lack of patient engagement in the deprescribing process. In designing EDS, the tools, likely to be used by junior doctors, pharmacists and nurses, should be available throughout the hospitalisation and should comprise non-interruptive evidence-based guidance on why and how to deprescribe. CONCLUSIONS: Deprescribing decisions are complex and influenced by multiple factors. The implementation of EDS alone is unlikely to address all barriers identified. To achieve sustained improvements in monitoring of polypharmacy and subsequent deprescribing, a multifaceted intervention is needed.