Establishing Mental Health Friendly Pharmacies to Assist in THe Early Identification and Support of OldEr Adults at Risk of Depression: the EMPATHISE pilot study.

BACKGROUND: Late-life depression (LLD) often goes underdiagnosed and undertreated. Community pharmacists are one of the most accessible and trusted healthcare professionals (HCPs) and may play a significant role in LLD screening. OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to develop and pilot a pharmacist-delivered depression screening and referral service for older adults (≥65 years) at risk of depression, within community pharmacy. METHODS: Community pharmacists across New South Wales, Australia, were recruited to participate in a prospective pilot study. Pharmacists/pharmacy staff received specialised training before recruiting and screening patients aged ≥65 years using the Geriatric Depression Scale-15 (GDS-15). Patients scoring ≥6 were referred to another HCP, e.g., general practitioner, and followed-up by the pharmacist one-week post-screening. Patients were also followed-up by a research team member 6-weeks post-screening to explore outcomes of the screening. Semi-structured interviews with pharmacists and patients were undertaken following completion of the pilot study to explore their experiences delivering/receiving the screening service. A thematic inductive analysis approach was used to analyse interview data. RESULTS: A total of 39 community pharmacies participated in this study. In total, 113 participants attended the training sessions. Pharmacists screened 15 patients from 8 pharmacies, of which 67% were female. Two thirds of patients (67%) received a GDS-15 score of ≥6, indicating possible depression and requiring referral. Pharmacists referred 80% of patients to another HCP. One patient was diagnosed with depression and commenced antidepressant therapy. Five patients and six pharmacists participated in semi-structured interviews. Barriers to screening included lack of time and mental illness stigma. Facilitators included pharmacist-patient relationships and training. CONCLUSION: Pharmacist-delivered LLD screening was found to be acceptable by both pharmacists and patients, with pharmacists reporting training improved their comfort and confidence with depression screening. These pilot study findings may inform future work into service delivery models to support early identification and treatment of LLD.

Correction to: Implementation of the goal-directed medication review electronic decision support system (G-MEDSS)© into home medicines review: a protocol for a clusterrandomised clinical trial in older adults.

An amendment to this paper has been published and can be accessed via the original article.

Factors influencing pharmacist interest and preparedness to work as on-site aged care pharmacists: Insights from qualitative analysis of free-text survey responses.

BACKGROUND: High rates of suboptimal medication use exist in residential aged care facilities (RACFs). Pharmacist interventions can improve medication appropriateness. In 2023 there will be a phased implementation of pharmacists working on-site in Australian RACFs. OBJECTIVE: To explore factors influencing Australian pharmacists' interest and perceived preparedness to work as on-site pharmacists in RACFs. METHODS: A national cross-sectional anonymous online survey of Australian pharmacists was conducted. Pharmacists were recruited using a broad advertising strategy. The 36-question survey included three free-text questions that are the focus of this study. The questions asked participants (1) what influenced their interest in the role, (2) what influenced how prepared they felt for the role, and (3) if they had any other comments about the role. Responses were thematically analysed by two investigators using an inductive approach. RESULTS: Most survey respondents (n=546, 84.9%) answered at least one free-text questions. Four factors influenced interest: on-site pharmacist role, aged care setting, individual pharmacist circumstances and employment model. Four factors influenced preparedness: familiarity with aged care setting, resident-level clinical skills; ability to communicate and work with a multidisciplinary team, and experience with system-level quality use of medicines activities. Four factors important for successful roll-out emerged from the 'other comments': pharmacist attributes, pharmacist workforce planning, resources and support, and RACF stakeholder engagement. CONCLUSION: Key factors influencing pharmacist interest and preparedness to work on-site in RACFs and factors important for success were identified. These findings will support the national roll-out of the role, particularly as most identified factors are currently modifiable.

Polypharmacy and precision medicine.

Precision medicine is an approach to maximise the effectiveness of disease treatment and prevention and minimise harm from medications by considering relevant demographic, clinical, genomic and environmental factors in making treatment decisions. Precision medicine is complex, even for decisions about single drugs for single diseases, as it requires expert consideration of multiple measurable factors that affect pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics, and many patient-specific variables. Given the increasing number of patients with multiple conditions and medications, there is a need to apply lessons learned from precision medicine in monotherapy and single disease management to optimise polypharmacy. However, precision medicine for optimisation of polypharmacy is particularly challenging because of the vast number of interacting factors that influence drug use and response. In this narrative review, we aim to provide and apply the latest research findings to achieve precision medicine in the context of polypharmacy. Specifically, this review aims to (1) summarise challenges in achieving precision medicine specific to polypharmacy; (2) synthesise the current approaches to precision medicine in polypharmacy; (3) provide a summary of the literature in the field of prediction of unknown drug-drug interactions (DDI) and (4) propose a novel approach to provide precision medicine for patients with polypharmacy. For our proposed model to be implemented in routine clinical practice, a comprehensive intervention bundle needs to be integrated into the electronic medical record using bioinformatic approaches on a wide range of data to predict the effects of polypharmacy regimens on an individual. In addition, clinicians need to be trained to interpret the results of data from sources including pharmacogenomic testing, DDI prediction and physiological-pharmacokinetic-pharmacodynamic modelling to inform their medication reviews. Future studies are needed to evaluate the efficacy of this model and to test generalisability so that it can be implemented at scale, aiming to improve outcomes in people with polypharmacy.

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.

The utility of a computerised clinical decision support system intervention in home medicines review: A mixed-methods process evaluation.

BACKGROUND: Use of high-risk medications is common and associated with adverse effects in older adults, including those living with dementia. A Computerised Clinical Decision Support System (CCDSS) called G-MEDSS© (Goal-directed Medication Review Electronic Decision Support System) contains tools that identify medications with anticholinergic and sedative effects and align older adult's health and medication goals of care with medication management strategies. OBJECTIVES: To describe the utility of a CCDSS called G-MEDSS in Home Medicines Review (HMR) by an accredited clinical pharmacist (ACP) using a mixed-methods process evaluation method. METHODS: A mixed-methods process evaluation was conducted as part of a nation-wide cluster-randomised clinical trial evaluating the effectiveness of implementing G-MEDSS in HMR. Data were collected from ACPs and HMR recipients (the patient) using a feedback survey (ACPs and HMR recipients) and one-on-one telephone interviews (HMR recipients). Quantitative and qualitative data were combined at the start of analysis. Content analysis of the qualitative data was conducted, and emerging categories were linked to quantitative data. RESULTS: Feedback surveys were completed by eight ACPs and 26 HMR recipients; 11 HMR recipients completed one-on-one telephone interviews. Overall, ACPs and HMR recipients who received the intervention reported a positive attitude towards the utility of G-MEDSS in HMR. ACPs reported that G-MEDSS enhanced their ability to make evidence-based recommendations about anticholinergic and sedative medications, and to better align HMR recommendations with HMR recipients' goals of care. However, ACPs described that it was difficult to obtain goals of care from HMR recipients. HMR recipients gave mixed reports about the ACPs consultations: some HMR recipients reported that they were engaged in discussions about their views on medications, whilst other participants reported that discussions about their concerns towards medications and goals was limited. CONCLUSIONS: This study suggests that a CCDSS, such as G-MEDSS, demonstrates good utility to assist ACPs to identify and assess anticholinergic and sedative medications. Given the mixed feedback from the ACPs on the different components of the G-MEDSS, further refinement of these tools and their use in combination in practice may be needed.

Barriers and Facilitators of Conducting Medication Reviews in Nursing Home Residents: A Qualitative Study.

Objectives: Inappropriate medication prescribing is a recognized clinical problem in nursing home residents of whom many have polypharmacy. However, results about the effectiveness of medication reviews targeted at improving prescribing and deprescribing have been equivocal. We therefore examined barriers and facilitators of conducting medication reviews. Method: We purposively sampled medication reviews to capture salient barriers and facilitators of conducting medication reviews both in nursing home care units for dementia and disabling conditions. We held semi-structured interviews about consecutive steps of medication reviews. Interviews were transcribed verbatim and analyzed with the "method of constant comparison." Results: Six nursing home residents/relatives of nursing home residents, 8 elder care physicians, 5 pharmacists, and 10 nurses took part in the semi-structured interviews. We observed four overarching themes of barriers and facilitators: "realizing fidelity of the patient perspective (theme 1)," "level of comprehensiveness of medication reviews (theme 2)," "inclinations of healthcare providers (theme 3)," and "inter-professional collaboration and alliances (theme 4)." Theme 1 "realizing fidelity of the patient perspective" referred to the observation that assessing the patient perspective was a delicate balance between the value and the impediments of a proper assessment of the patient perspective. Theme 2 "level of comprehensiveness of medication reviews" reflected the struggle of practitioners to find an optimum between medication reviews being both comprehensive and feasible. Theme 3 "inclinations of healthcare providers" concerned setting intervention targets that were complementary to the practices of physicians and keeping the pharmacist blind to the patient perspective as a countermeasure to physicians' inclinations. Finally, theme 4 "inter-professional collaboration and alliances" highlighted mutual support and inter-professional collaboration to strengthen healthcare practitioners' contributions. Discussion: These themes of barriers and facilitators emphasize the need to improve meta-communication during the medication review process. This pertains to the need for healthcare providers to appraise the fidelity of the patient perspective in a dialogue with residents/relatives. Furthermore, discourse between healthcare practitioners is needed beforehand about the level of comprehensiveness intervention targets, and inter-professional collaboration.

Association of cardiovascular system medications with cognitive function and dementia in older adults living in nursing homes in Australia.

OBJECTIVE: To examine associations between cardiovascular system medication use with cognition function and diagnosis of dementia in older adults living in nursing homes in Australia. METHODS: As part of a cross-sectional study of 17 Australian nursing homes examining quality of life and resource use, we examined the association between cognitive impairment and cardiovascular medication use (identified using the Anatomical Therapeutic Classification System) using general linear regression and logistic regression models. People who were receiving end of life care were excluded. RESULTS: Participants included 541 residents with a mean age of 85.5 years (± 8.5), a mean Psychogeriatric Assessment Scale-Cognitive Impairment (PAS-Cog) score of 13.3 (± 7.7), a prevalence of cardiovascular diseases of 44% and of hypertension of 47%. Sixty-four percent of participants had been diagnosed with dementia and 72% had received cardiovascular system medications within the previous 12 months. Regression models demonstrated the use of cardiovascular medications was associated with lower (better) PAS-Cog scores [Coefficient (ß) = -3.7; 95% CI: -5.2 to -2.2; P < 0.0001] and a lower probability of a dementia diagnosis (OR = 0.44; 95% CI: 0.26 to 0.75, P = 0.0022). Analysis by subgroups of medications showed cardiac therapy medications (C01), beta blocking agents (C07), and renin-angiotensin system agents (C09) were associated with lower PAS-Cog scores (better cognition) and lower dementia diagnosis probability. CONCLUSIONS: This analysis has demonstrated an association between greater cardiovascular system medication use and better cognitive status among older adults living in nursing homes. In this population, there may be differential access to health care and treatment of cardiovascular risk factors. This association warrants further investigation in large cohort studies.