General practice pharmacist-led antipsychotic physical health monitoring: a prospective intervention scoping study.

BACKGROUND: People with severe mental health illness die prematurely, often due to preventable cardiometabolic disease, which can be exacerbated by antipsychotic medicines that are effective for treating mental illness. Literature demonstrates that physical health monitoring, as recommended in guidelines, for people receiving antipsychotics is substandard. Therefore, we aimed to scope the potential of a general practice clinical pharmacist (GPCP)-led multidisciplinary intervention optimising adherence to cardiometabolic monitoring guidelines and delivering polypharmacy reviews. METHOD: Prospective intervention scoping study in three urban general practices; one usual care, two intervention. Patients 18-65 years old prescribed oral antipsychotics were identified from records, and invited for cardiometabolic monitoring and GPCP medication review, from January to December 2022. Interventions and onward referrals were recorded and collated. Anonymised pre- and post-review data were analysed, and actions were graded for clinical importance. RESULTS: In total 1.5% (210/14,159) of patients aged 18-65 years met inclusion criteria; usual care practice (n = 58); and intervention practices (n = 152). From baseline, the usual care practice achieved an absolute 7% increase in the cardiometabolic monitoring care bundle (glucose/glycosylated haemoglobin, lipids, blood pressure plus body mass index) versus 19-58% in the intervention practices. Two-thirds (92/152) of patients participated in medication reviews, requiring pharmacological and/or non-pharmacological clinical actions. The majority of actions were graded as moderate importance. Seven percentage of patients were identified as new pre-diabetic/diabetic and 6% were at high risk of cardiovascular disease requiring statin initiation. CONCLUSION: A pharmacist-led multidisciplinary general practice-based approach may be effective at optimising cardiometabolic monitoring; identifying and treating diabetic and cardiovascular risk factors.

People with severe mental illness die 15­20 years earlier than the general population, many due to preventable and/or treatable heart disease. While antipsychotic medicines are effective for treating mental illness they are associated with potential adverse effects; weight gain, increased blood pressure, blood sugar, and cholesterol. Therefore, guidelines advise regular physical health checks for people with severe mental illness, and those receiving antipsychotics, to reduce avoidable harms and optimise preventative treatments. However, routine monitoring is substandard. This study aimed to explore the potential of a general practice pharmacist-led intervention to optimise physical health monitoring and medication reviews, from January to December 2022. Three practices participated; one providing usual care, and two the pharmacist intervention. The usual care practice achieved a 7% increase in all monitoring parameters (weight, blood pressure, blood sugars plus cholesterol), whereas the pharmacist-led practices achieved a 19­58% increase in monitoring. Two in three patients (92/152) participated in a medication review with the pharmacists that addressed a range of mental and physical health issues. Of the 152 patients in the intervention practices 6% were identified as being at high risk of heart disease requiring preventative medicines, and 7% were identified as having new diabetes and/or pre-diabetes.

New ways of working releasing general practitioner capacity with pharmacy prescribing support: a cost-consequence analysis.

BACKGROUND: General practice in the United Kingdom is experiencing a workforce crisis. Greater multidisciplinary working, including more general practice pharmacists, is seen as part of the solution. However, it is unknown what impact and cost-consequences that pharmacists may have in freeing general practitioner (GP) capacity. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the cost-consequences of additional pharmacists in releasing GP capacity. METHODS: This cost-consequences evaluation of a prospective observational cohort study in 15 urban practices involving 69 GPs in 1 locality serving a population of 82,000 people. GPs recorded the time they spent addressing key targeted prescribing activities during 5 distinct 2-week audit periods. Pharmacists performed these key prescribing activities to release GP capacity. An additional 225 h of pharmacists' time per week was committed to the locality. Standardized staff costings were used to estimate the financial impact. Prescribing indicator performance was assessed against the other 7 localities within the health board. RESULTS: When compared with employing extra nonsalaried GPs this required an estimated additional investment of £16.73 (range £5.97-20.87) per h to free GP capacity. This achieved a sustainable 47% (73 h per week, F(4,56) = 16.05, P < 0.001) reduction in GP time spent on key prescribing activities; equating to 4.9 h (95% confidence interval 3.1-6.7) per practice per week. No significant step changes in locality safety and quality prescribing measures, and no negative effects on locality-level prescribing cost-efficiency work were observed. CONCLUSION: Appropriately resourced general practice pharmacy teams delivered prescribing cost-efficiencies as well as sustainably freeing GP capacity by performing key prescribing activities.

General practice in the United Kingdom is experiencing a workforce crisis, and is struggling to deliver services. Pharmacists have been shown to be effective in freeing general practitioner (GP) capacity. However, it is unknown how much it costs to do this. Therefore, we aimed to assess the cost-consequences of releasing GP capacity. All practices in 1 region took part. GPs recorded the time it routinely took them to address key prescribing activities, Spring 2016. Pharmacists then delivered the key prescribing activities. The region got an extra 225 h of pharmacists' time to do these activities. Then in Spring 2018, the GPs and pharmacists recorded the time took to do the key prescribing activities. Standard salary costs were used to estimate how much money was needed to free GP capacity with pharmacists. The impact on routine cost-effective work was also assessed. Pharmacists delivering key prescribing activities freed 73 h per week of GP time. This equalled an average of 5 h per week per practice. Freeing GP capacity was estimated to cost an extra £16.73 (range £5.97­20.87) per h. There were no negative effects on cost-efficiency work. Appropriately resourcing general practice with pharmacists delivers sustainable prescribing cost-efficiencies and frees GP capacity.

A Digital Intervention for Primary Care Practitioners to Support Antidepressant Discontinuation (Advisor for Health Professionals): Development Study.

BACKGROUND: The number of people receiving antidepressants has increased in the past 3 decades, mainly because of people staying on them longer. However, in many cases long-term treatment is not evidence based and risks increasing side effects. Additionally, prompting general practitioners (GPs) to review medication does not improve the rate of appropriate discontinuation. Therefore, GPs and other health professionals may need help to support patients discontinuing antidepressants in primary care. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to develop a digital intervention to support practitioners in helping patients discontinue inappropriate long-term antidepressants (as part of a wider intervention package including a patient digital intervention and patient telephone support). METHODS: A prototype digital intervention called Advisor for Health Professionals (ADvisor HP) was planned and developed using theory, evidence, and a person-based approach. The following elements informed development: a literature review and qualitative synthesis, an in-depth qualitative study, the development of guiding principles for design elements, and theoretical behavioral analyses. The intervention was then optimized through think-aloud qualitative interviews with health professionals while they were using the prototype intervention. RESULTS: Think-aloud qualitative interviews with 19 health professionals suggested that the digital intervention contained useful information and was readily accessible to practitioners. The development work highlighted a need for further guidance on drug tapering schedules for practitioners and clarity about who is responsible for broaching the subject of discontinuation. Practitioners highlighted the need to have information in easily and quickly accessible formats because of time constraints in day-to-day practice. Some GPs felt that some information was already known to them but understood why this was included. Practitioners differed in their ideas about how they would use ADvisor HP in practice, with some preferring to read the resource in its entirety and others wanting to dip in and out as needed. Changes were made to the wording and structure of the intervention in response to the feedback provided. CONCLUSIONS: ADvisor HP is a digital intervention that has been developed using theory, evidence, and a person-based approach. The optimization work suggests that practitioners may find this tool to be useful in supporting the reduction of long-term antidepressant use. Further quantitative and qualitative evaluation through a randomized controlled trial is needed to examine the feasibility, effectiveness, and cost-effectiveness of the intervention.

'Doing the right thing': factors influencing GP prescribing of antidepressants and prescribed doses.

BACKGROUND: Antidepressant prescribing continues to increase, with 5-16% of adults receiving antidepressants annually. Total prescribing growth is due in part to increased long-term use, greater selective serotonin re-uptake inhibitor (SSRI) use and the use of higher SSRI doses. Evidence does not support routine use of higher SSRI doses for depression treatment, and factors influencing the use of such doses are not well known. The aim of this study was to explore factors influencing GPs' use of antidepressants and their doses to treat depression. METHODS: Semi-structured interviews with a purposive sample of 28 practising GPs; sampled by antidepressant prescribing volume, practice size and deprivation level. A topic guide drawing on past literature was used with enough flexibility to allow additional themes to emerge. Interviews were audio-recorded and transcribed verbatim. Framework analysis was employed. Constant comparison and disconfirmation were carried out across transcripts, with data collection being interspersed with analysis by three researchers. The thematic framework was then systematically applied to the data and conceptualised into an overarching explanatory model. RESULTS: Depression treatment involved ethical and professional imperatives of 'doing the right thing' for individuals by striving to achieve the 'right care fit'. This involved medicalised and non-medicalised patient-centred approaches. Factors influencing antidepressant prescribing and doses varied over time from first presentation, to antidepressant initiation and longer-term treatment. When faced with distressed patients showing symptoms of moderate to severe depression GPs were confident prescribing SSRIs which they considered as safe and effective medicines, and ethically and professionally appropriate. Many GPs were unaware that higher doses lacked greater efficacy and onset of action occurred within 1-2 weeks, preferring to wait 8-12 weeks before increasing or switching. Ongoing pressures to maintain prescribing (e.g. fear of depression recurrence), few perceived continuation problems (e.g. lack of safety concerns) and lack of proactive medication review (e.g. patients only present in crisis), all combine to further drive antidepressant prescribing growth over time. CONCLUSIONS: GPs strive to 'do the right thing' to help people. Antidepressants are only a single facet of depression treatment. However, increased awareness of drug limitations and regular proactive reviews may help optimise care.

Patient factors associated with SSRI dose for depression treatment in general practice: a primary care cross sectional study.

BACKGROUND: Antidepressant prescribing continues to rise. Increased long-term prescribing and higher doses are contributing to current growth; however, patient factors associated with the use of higher doses remain unknown. This study's aim was to investigate patient factors associated with selective serotonin re-uptake inhibitor (SSRI) prescribed daily dose for depression treatment in general practice. METHODS: A stratified sample of low to high prescribing practices were selected. Routine individual patient-level data were extracted one practice at a time: September 2009 to January 2011. Patients included were ≥18 years, and prescribed an SSRI for depression. Logistic regression analysis was undertaken to assess individual predictor variables on SSRI daily dose by standard therapeutic dose versus higher dose, as SSRIs demonstrate flat dose response curves for depression treatment. Predictor variables included: age, gender, deprivation, co-morbidity, smoking status, being prescribed the same SSRI for ≥2 years, and patients' general practice. For a subgroup of patients a second sub-group analysis included long-term benzodiazepine and/or z-hypnotic (B&Z) as a predictor variable. RESULTS: Inter-practice SSRI prescribing varied significantly; practice point prevalence ranged from 2.5% (94/3697) to 11.9% (359/3007) of the practice population ≥18 years old; median 7.3% (250/3421) (χ2 = 2277.2, df = 10, p < 0.001). Overall point prevalence was 6.3% (3518/52575), with 5.8% (3066/52575) prescribed SSRIs for depression of whom 84.7% (2596/3066) had data for regression analysis. Higher SSRI doses were significantly associated with, in descending order of magnitude, individual practice attended, being prescribed the same SSRI for ≥2 years (Odds Ratio (OR) 1.80, 95% CI 1.49 to 2.17, p < 0.001) and living in a more deprived area (OR 1.55, 95% CI 1.11 to 2.16, p = 0.009). Higher SSRI doses in the B&Z subgroup were significantly associated with individual practice attended, being prescribed a long-term B&Z (OR 2.05 95% CI 1.47 to 2.86, p < 0.001) and being prescribed the same SSRI for ≥2 years (OR 1.94, 95% CI 1.53 to 2.47, p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Higher SSRI doses for depression were associated with practice attended and being prescribed the same antidepressant for ≥2 years. As long-term antidepressant use increases, the use of higher doses may further contribute to prescribing growth.

Internet and Telephone Support for Discontinuing Long-Term Antidepressants: The REDUCE Cluster Randomized Trial.

Importance: There is significant concern regarding increasing long-term antidepressant treatment for depression beyond an evidence-based duration. Objective: To determine whether adding internet and telephone support to a family practitioner review to consider discontinuing long-term antidepressant treatment is safe and more effective than a practitioner review alone. Design, Setting, and Participants: In this cluster randomized clinical trial, 131 UK family practices were randomized between December 1, 2018, and March 31, 2022, with remote computerized allocation and 12 months of follow-up. Participants and researchers were aware of allocation, but analysis was blind. Participants were adults who were receiving antidepressants for more than 1 year for a first episode of depression or more than 2 years for recurrent depression who were currently well enough to consider discontinuation and wished to do so and who were at low risk of relapse. Of 6725 patients mailed invitations, 330 (4.9%) were eligible and consented. Interventions: Internet and telephone self-management support, codesigned and coproduced with patients and practitioners. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary (safety) outcome was depression at 6 months (prespecified complete-case analysis), testing for noninferiority of the intervention to under 2 points on the 9-item Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-9). Secondary outcomes (testing for superiority) were antidepressant discontinuation, anxiety, quality of life, antidepressant withdrawal symptoms, mental well-being, enablement, satisfaction, use of health care services, and adverse events. Analyses for the main outcomes were performed on a complete-case basis, and multiple imputation sensitivity analysis was performed on an intention-to-treat basis. Results: Of 330 participants recruited (325 eligible for inclusion; 178 in intervention practices and 147 in control practices; mean [SD] age at baseline, 54.0 [14.9] years; 223 women [68.6%]), 276 (83.6%) were followed up at 6 months, and 240 (72.7%) at 12 months. The intervention proved noninferior; mean (SD) PHQ-9 scores at 6 months were slightly lower in the intervention arm than in the control arm in the complete-case analysis (4.0 [4.3] vs 5.0 [4.7]; adjusted difference, -1.1; 95% CI, -2.1 to -0.1; P = .03) but not significantly different in an intention-to-treat multiple imputation sensitivity analysis (adjusted difference, -0.9 (95% CI, -1.9 to 0.1; P = .08). By 6 months, antidepressants had been discontinued by 66 of 145 intervention arm participants (45.5%) who provided discontinuation data and 54 of 129 control arm participants (41.9%) (adjusted odds ratio, 1.02; 95% CI, 0.52-1.99; P = .96). In the intervention arm, antidepressant withdrawal symptoms were less severe, and mental well-being was better compared with the control arm; differences were small but significant. There were no significant differences in the other outcomes; 28 of 179 intervention arm participants (15.6%) and 22 of 151 control arm participants (14.6%) experienced adverse events. Conclusions and Relevance: In this cluster randomized clinical trial of adding internet and telephone support to a practitioner review for possible antidepressant discontinuation, depression was slightly better with support, but the rate of discontinuation of antidepressants did not significantly increase. Improvements in antidepressant withdrawal symptoms and mental well-being were also small. There were no significant harms. Family practitioner review for possible discontinuation of antidepressants appeared safe and effective for more than 40% of patients willing and well enough to discontinue. Trial Registration: ISRCTN registry Identifiers: ISRCTN15036829 (internal pilot trial) and ISRCTN12417565 (main trial).

Identifying mental health training needs of general practice pharmacy workforce to advance practice: a training needs analysis survey.

BACKGROUND: Mental health problems are commonly treated in general practice. Pharmacy roles are evolving in general practice; however it is unknown what mental health training the pharmacy workforce needs. AIM: To identify and prioritise general practice clinical pharmacists' (GPCPs) and technicians' mental health and psychotropic prescribing learning needs within general practice. METHOD: All 353 GPCPs and technicians, in one health board, were invited to participate in an online survey, September 2021. The validated Hennessy-Hicks Training Needs Assessment Questionnaire, was embedded in the survey. Participants rated 26 tasks with regard to their confidence in performing the task, and importance to their role. Clinical knowledge was assessed against clinical guidelines and literature. RESULTS: Response rate was 26% (92/353); 27% (68/256) GPCPs and 25% (24/97) technicians. Respondents prioritised 'appraising own performance' and 'assessing suicide/deliberate self-harm risk' as high training needs. There were significant variations in prioritisation between GPCPs and technicians; substantial pharmacist agreement (inter-rater correlation 0.713, 95% CI 0.376-0.870, p = 0.001). Depression was a priority training need followed by anxiety, dementia, bipolar, attention deficit (hyperactivity) disorder and schizophrenia. For depression treatment, 2 in 3 respondents were unaware of early antidepressant response, dose-response effects for efficacy, and would wait 8-12 weeks before optimising treatment. The majority were aware of individual lithium and antipsychotic cardiometabolic monitoring parameters; 25% identifying the correct monitoring care-bundle. CONCLUSION: Respondents identified a range of training needs which varied between technicians and pharmacist, and staff banding. Addressing these learning needs may help pharmacy staff to better support practices and patients.

Dose-response effects of selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor monotherapy for the treatment of depression: systematic review of reviews and meta-narrative synthesis.

Objective: To assess and clarify the relations between selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor (SSRI) dose efficacy, acceptability (early treatment discontinuation (dropouts)), and tolerability (reported adverse drug effects), and critically evaluate methods previously used to examine SSRI dose-response effects for the treatment of depression in adults. Design: Systematic review of reviews and meta-narrative synthesis. Data sources: Embase, Medline, PsycINFO, Scopus, and the Cochrane Collaboration library, from 1975 to December 2021. Reference lists of national depression treatment guidelines were systemically searched by hand. Eligibility criteria for selecting studies: Reviews assessing SSRI monotherapy dose-response effects for the treatment of depression in adults (age ≥18 years) reporting efficacy, acceptability, or tolerability. Reviews meeting inclusion criteria had a high degree of heterogeneity, due to methodological diversity; therefore, a meta-narrative synthesis approach was applied. Standard daily doses were defined as 20 mg citalopram, fluoxetine, paroxetine; 50 mg sertraline; and 10 mg escitalopram. Risk of bias was assessed using the Risk of Bias in Systematic Reviews tool, in line with Cochrane recommendations. Results: The search identified 9138 records; 387 full text reports were assessed for eligibility, 42 of which matched the inclusion criteria. The majority, 83% (n=35), of reviews included data for studies with a duration of ≤12 weeks (ie, the acute phase of depression treatment). Of 39 reviews assessing efficacy, the majority (n=26) indicated that individual SSRIs and SSRI class demonstrated flat dose-response effects; standard doses were optimal for efficacy. Acceptability or tolerability were assessed in 28 reviews. Higher than standard daily doses were associated with higher dropout rates and a greater incidence of adverse drug effects (eg, nausea, sexual dysfunction, fatigue, anxiety). Despite a range of methods being reported, there was an overall consensus regarding SSRI dose related efficacy, dropouts, and adverse drug effects. Conclusion: Standard daily doses of SSRIs for the treatment of depression in adults provide a favourable balance between efficacy, acceptability, and tolerability. Patients are encouraged to talk to their prescriber or community pharmacist if they experience adverse effects or have any concerns about their drug treatments.

The standards of practice for delivery of polypharmacy and chronic disease medication reviews by general practice clinical pharmacists: a consensus study.

Background General practice in the UK is experiencing a crisis. Greater multidisciplinary working is a potential solution. The new general practice contract in Scotland encourages this and includes a new pharmacotherapy service to be delivered by General Practice Clinical Pharmacists (GPCPs). Consensus is lacking for the standards of practice for delivery of pharmacotherapy medication reviews (which are polypharmacy and chronic medication reviews) as part of this service. Aim To identify and validate standards of practice for polypharmacy and chronic disease medication (pharmacotherapy level 3) reviews conducted by GPCPs. Method A two-phased mixed-methods consensus methodology was used. Phase 1: An expert group of GPCPs (n = 4) and clinical pharmacist managers (n = 2) responsible for delivering the pharmacotherapy service used a Modified Nominal Group Technique to generate potential standards. Phase 2: Two-round Delphi survey involving GPCPs with ≥ 1 year of experience of working in general practice (n = 159). Results The expert group identified 44 potential standards of practice for polypharmacy and chronic disease reviews. Practicing GPCPs indicated during the Delphi phase that the 44 standards were applicable to practice. The standards of practice covered seven main categories: skills, environment, qualifications, qualities and behaviours, knowledge, process and experience. Conclusion Practicing GPCPs indicated that the standards identified by the expert group are acceptable and valid for current practice and the delivery of polypharmacy and chronic medication reviews. The application of these standards to practice may help GPCPs and general practices to ensure equitable delivery of patient care.

Exploring learning needs for general practice based pharmacist: Are behavioural and influencing skills needed?

BACKGROUND: Embedding pharmacists in general practice has been shown to create cost efficiencies, improve patient care and free general practitioner capacity. Consequently, there is a drive to recruit additional pharmacists to work within general practices. However, equipping pharmacists with behaviour and influencing skills may further optimise their impact. Key elements which may enhance behaviour and influencing skills include self-efficacy and resilience. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to: 1) Assess general practice pharmacists' self-efficacy and resilience. 2) Explore differences primarily between pharmacists reporting lower and higher self-efficacy, secondarily for those reporting lower and higher scores for resilience. METHODS: All 159 NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde general practice pharmacists were invited to complete an online survey in May 2019. The survey captured anonymised data covering: demographics; professional experience; qualifications, prescribing status and preferred learning styles. Unconscious learning needs for behavioural and influencing skills were assessed using validated tools: the new general self-efficacy scale (GSES) and short general resilience scale (GRIT). Participants' responses were differentiated by the lowest quartile and higher quartiles of GSES and GRIT scores, and analysed to identify differences. RESULTS: The survey was completed by 57% (91/159) of eligible pharmacists; mean age 38 (range 24-60) years; 91% were of white ethnicity and 89% female. The median time qualified was 14 (1-38) years and 3 (1-22) years working in general practices. Overall pharmacists scored well on the GSES, mean 25 (SD 3; 95%CI 24.4-25.6), and GRIT, mean 30 (SD 4; 95%CI 29.6-30.4), out of a maximum 32 and 40 respectively. A significant positive correlation between GSES and GRIT scores was found (Pearson's r=0.284, p=0.006). However, no significant differences were identified between pharmacists scoring in the lower and upper quartiles by GSES or GRIT. Overall respondents reported their preferred learning styles were activists (46%) or pragmatists (29%). The majority (91%) preferred blended learning methods as opposed to 38% or less for a range of online methods. CONCLUSIONS: General practice pharmacists on average scored highly for self-efficacy and resilience. Higher scores did not appear to be associated with demographic, years of practice, professional or educational experience. Prospective interventions to support those with lower scores may enhance and optimise pharmacists' effectiveness in general practice.

Prevalence and treatment of neurological and psychiatric disorders among tertiary hospitals in Pakistan; findings and implications.

INTRODUCTION: Mental health and neurological disorders are prevalent in Pakistan. However, there are considerable concerns with their management due to issues of access, availability of trained personnel and stigma alongside paucity of such data. Consequently, there is a need to document current treatment approaches starting with tertiary hospitals in Pakistan where patients with more severe mental and neurological disorders are typically treated. Subsequently, use the findings to help direct future policies and initiatives. METHODS: Multi-centered, cross-sectional, prospective study principally evaluating current medicine usage among patients attending tertiary hospitals in Pakistan with psychiatric and neurological disorders. In addition, possible factors contributing to the prevalence of these disorders in this population to help with future care. All 23 tertiary care hospitals in the ten major Districts in Pakistan were included, which cover 75% of the population. RESULTS: 57,664 patients were evaluated of which 35.3% were females. Both females and males had multiple brain disorders and multiple co-morbidities. Schizophrenia was the most prevalent disorder overall among both females (25.2%) and males (30.4%). A median of six medicines were prescribed per patient, with antipsychotics and antidepressants the most prescribed medicines. Clozapine was the most prescribed medicine in males (12.25%) and females (11.83%) including for psychiatric disorders, with sodium valproate the most prescribed medicine in epilepsy in males (42.44% of all anti-epileptic medicines) as well as females (46.38%). There was a greater prevalence of both disorders among the lower classes. A greater prevalence of schizophrenia was seen in patients abusing alcohol and smokers. The divorce rate was higher among the studied patients and the prevalence of depression was higher among the widowed population. CONCLUSIONS: There were concerns with the quality of prescribing including the extent of polypharmacy as well as possible overuse of clozapine especially in patients with epilepsy, both of which need addressing.

Evaluation of discharge prescriptions for secondary prevention in patients with acute coronary syndromes in Iraq.

BACKGROUND: Optimal prescribing of secondary prevention medications after acute coronary syndrome (ACS) events has been shown to reduce morbidity and mortality. However, it is unknown whether these medications are optimally prescribed at discharge from acute care in Iraq. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate whether patients with ACS received optimal secondary prevention medications: antiplatelets, statins, angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors/angiotensin II receptor blockers (ACEI/ARBs), and beta-blockers at discharge from a cardiology unit, and to assess whether statins, ACEI/ARBs and beta-blockers were prescribed at target doses based on the American Heart Association/American College of Cardiology (AHA/ACC) guidelines. METHODS: Observational retrospective cross-sectional study of patients with ACS admitted to a hospital in Baghdad and survived to discharge between May 2016 and January 2017. Patient-level data and secondary prevention medications at discharge were extracted from routine medical records. Optimal dosing was defined as ≥75%, moderate dosing as 50-74%, and low dosing as <50% of the target dose. RESULTS: 45.6% (200/439) of eligible patients were included in the study who were aged 25 to 90 years (mean 57.8 years) with 78.0% (156/200) being male. Of those included, 84.5% had a myocardial infarction and 15.5% unstable angina, and the length of hospital stay ranged from 1 to 29 days (median 4 days). In total, 53.5% of patients were prescribed all five secondary prevention medications at discharge, and after accounting for contraindications, 60.0% were treated according to AHA/ACC guidelines. The prescription rate of dual antiplatelet therapy, statins, ACEI/ARBs and beta-blockers was 92.5%, 94.5%, 69.5% and 87.0% respectively. Hypertension, diabetes mellitus and the prescription of oral nitrates were associated with the prescription of optimal secondary prevention therapy. Although 80.9% of patients were prescribed target doses of antiplatelets and statins, only 12.2% and 9.2% were prescribed target doses of ACEI/ARBs, and beta-blockers respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Approximately one in two patients received the recommended secondary prevention therapy. However, only a minority of patients were prescribed optimal doses of ACEI/ARBs and beta-blockers, in line with guidance. Quality improvement strategies should be implemented, which may include greater involvement of pharmacists within the cardiology multidisciplinary team.

Medicines reconciliation at the community mental health team-general practice interface: quality improvement study.

Aims and methodTo increase the proportion of patients with no psychotropic drug discrepancies at the community mental health team (CMHT)-general practice interface. Three CMHTs participated. Over a 14 month period, quality improvement methodologies were used: individual patient-level feedback to patient's prescribers, run charts and meetings with CMHTs. RESULTS: One CMHT improved medicines reconciliation accuracy and demonstrated significant reductions in prescribing discrepancies. One in three (119/356) patients had ≥1 discrepancy involving 20% (166/847) of all prescribed psychotropics. Discrepancies were graded as: 'fatal' (0%), 'serious' (17%) and 'negligible/minor harm' (83%) but were associated with extra avoidable prescribing costs. For medicines routinely supplied by secondary care, 68% were not recorded in general practice electronic prescribing systems.Clinical implicationsImprovements in medicines reconciliation accuracy were achieved for one CMHT. This may have been partly owing to a multidisciplinary team approach to sharing and addressing prescribing discrepancies. Improving prescribing accuracy may help to reduce avoidable drug-related harms to patients.Declaration of interestNone.

Ongoing initiatives within the Scottish National Health Service to affect the prescribing of selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors and their influence.

Aim: Increasing use of selective serotonin-reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) in Scotland, coupled with safety concerns with some SSRIs, and the increasing availability of generic SSRIs, have resulted in multiple initiatives to improve the quality and efficiency of their prescribing in Scotland. Our aim is to assess their influence to provide future direction. Materials & methods: The prescription costs analysis database was used to document utilization and expenditure on SSRIs between 2001 and 2017 alongside documenting the initiatives. Results: Multiple interventions over the years increased international nonproprietary name prescribing up to 99.9% lowering overall costs. This, coupled with initiatives to limit escitalopram prescribing due to concerns with its value, resulted in a 73.7% reduction in SSRI expenditure between 2001 and 2017 despite a 2.34-fold increase in utilization. Safety warnings resulted in a significant reduction in the prescribing of paroxetine, citalopram and escitalopram alongside a significant increase in sertraline Conclusion: Multiple initiatives have increased the quality and efficiency of SSRI prescribing in Scotland providing direction to others.

Releasing GP capacity with pharmacy prescribing support and New Ways of Working: a prospective observational cohort study.

BACKGROUND: General practice in the UK is experiencing a workforce crisis. However, it is unknown what impact prescribing support teams may have on freeing up GP capacity and time for clinical activities. AIM: To release GP time by providing additional prescribing resources to support general practices between April 2016 and March 2017. DESIGN AND SETTING: Prospective observational cohort study in 16 urban general practices that comprise Inverclyde Health and Social Care Partnership in Scotland. METHOD: GPs recorded the time they spent dealing with special requests, immediate discharges, outpatient requests, and other prescribing issues for 2 weeks prior to the study and for two equivalent periods during the study. Specialist clinical pharmacists performed these key prescribing activities to release GP time and Read coded their activities. GP and practice staff were surveyed to assess their expectations at baseline and their experiences during the final data-collection period. Prescribing support staff were also surveyed during the study period. RESULTS: GP time spent on key prescribing activities significantly reduced by 51% (79 hours, P<0.001) per week, equating to 4.9 hours (95% confidence interval = 3.4 to 6.4) per week per practice. The additional clinical pharmacist resource was well received and appreciated by GPs and practices. As well as freeing up GP capacity, practices and practitioners also identified improvements in patient safety, positive effects on staff morale, and reductions in stress. Prescribing support staff also indicated that the initiative had a positive impact on job satisfaction and was considered sustainable, although practice expectations and time constraints created new challenges. CONCLUSION: Specialist clinical pharmacists are safe and effective in supporting GPs and practices with key prescribing activities in order to directly free GP capacity. However, further work is required to assess the impact of such service developments on prescribing cost-efficiency and clinical pharmacist medication review work.

Benzodiazepine and z-hypnotic prescribing from acute psychiatric inpatient discharge to long-term care in the community.

BACKGROUND: Benzodiazepine and z-hypnotic prescribing has slowly decreased over the past 20 years, however long-term chronic prescribing still occurs and is at odds with prescribing guidance. OBJECTIVES: To identify the pattern of benzodiazepine and z-hypnotic prescribing in psychiatric inpatients at discharge and 12 months post-discharge. METHODS: Retrospective observational longitudinal cohort study of patients admitted to two adult psychiatric wards between June and November 2012 (inclusive) who were discharged with a prescription for a benzodiazepine or z-hypnotic drug. Routinely collected prescription data available from NHS Scotland Prescribing Information System was used to identify and follow community prescribing of benzodiazepine and z-hypnotics for a 12 month period post-discharge. Data were entered in Excel® and further analysed using SPSS 23. Ethical approval was not required for this service evaluation however Caldicott Guardian approval was sought and granted. RESULTS: Eighty patients were admitted during the study period however only those patients with a single admission were included for analysis (n=74). Thirty per cent (22/74) of patients were prescribed a benzodiazepine or z-hypnotics at discharge; 14 of whom received 'long-term' benzodiazepine and z-hypnotics i.e. continued use over the 12 month period. Seven patients received a combination of anxiolytics and hypnotics (e.g., diazepam plus temazepam or zopiclone). Long-term use was associated with a non-significant increase in median benzodiazepine or z-hypnotic dose, expressed as diazepam equivalents. CONCLUSIONS: One in three patients were prescribed a benzodiazepine or z-hypnotics at discharge with 1 in 5 receiving continuous long-term treatment (prescriptions) for 12 months post-discharge. As chronic long-term B-Z prescribing and use still remains an issue, future strategies using routine patient-level prescribing data may support prescribers to review and minimise inappropriate long-term prescribing.

Benzodiazepine and z-hypnotic prescribing for older people in primary care: a cross-sectional population-based study.

BACKGROUND: Overall prescribing of benzodiazepines and z-hypnotics (B&Zs) has slowly reduced over the past 20 years. However, long-term prescribing still occurs, particularly among older people, and this is at odds with prescribing guidance. AIM: To compare prescribing of B&Zs between care home and non-care home residents ≥65 years old. DESIGN AND SETTING: Cross-sectional population-based study in primary care in Scotland. METHOD: National patient-level B&Z prescribing data, for all adults aged ≥65 years, were extracted from the Prescribing Information System (PIS) for the calendar year 2011. The PIS gives access to data for all NHS prescriptions dispensed in primary care in Scotland. Data were stratified by health board, residential status, sex, and age (65-74, 75-84, and ≥85 years). To minimise disclosure risk, data from smaller health boards were amalgamated according to geography, thereby reducing the number from 14 to 10 areas. RESULTS: A total of 17% (n = 879 492) of the Scottish population were aged ≥65 years, of which 3.7% (n = 32 368) were care home residents. In total, 12.1% (n = 106 412) of older people were prescribed one or more B&Z: 5.9% an anxiolytic, 7.5% a hypnotic, and 1.3% were prescribed both. B&Zs were prescribed to 28.4% (9199) of care home and 11.5% (97 213) of non-care home residents (relative risk = 2.88, 95% CI = 2.82 to 2.95, P<0.001). Estimated annual B&Z exposure reduced with increasing age of care home residents, whereas non-care home residents' exposure increased with age. CONCLUSION: B&Zs were commonly prescribed for older people, with care home residents approximately three times more likely to be prescribed B&Zs than non-care home residents. However, overall B&Z exposure among non-care home residents was found to rise with increasing age.

Exploring learning needs for general practice based pharmacist: are behavioural and influencing skills needed?

BACKGROUND: Embedding pharmacists in general practice has been shown to create cost efficiencies, improve patient care and free general practitioner capacity. Consequently, there is a drive to recruit additional pharmacists to work within general practices. However, equipping pharmacists with behaviour and influencing skills may further optimise their impact. Key elements which may enhance behaviour and influencing skills include self-efficacy and resilience. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to: 1) Assess general practice pharmacists' self-efficacy and resilience. 2) Explore differences primarily between pharmacists reporting lower and higher self-efficacy, secondarily for those reporting lower and higher scores for resilience. METHODS: All 159 NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde general practice pharmacists were invited to complete an online survey in May 2019. The survey captured anonymised data covering: demographics; professional experience; qualifications, prescribing status and preferred learning styles. Unconscious learning needs for behavioural and influencing skills were assessed using validated tools: the new general self-efficacy scale (GSES) and short general resilience scale (GRIT). Participants' responses were differentiated by the lowest quartile and higher quartiles of GSES and GRIT scores, and analysed to identify differences. RESULTS: The survey was completed by 57% (91/159) of eligible pharmacists; mean age 38 (range 24-60) years; 91% were of white ethnicity and 89% female. The median time qualified was 14 (1-38) years and 3 (1-22) years working in general practices. Overall pharmacists scored well on the GSES, mean 25 (SD 3; 95%CI 24.4-25.6), and GRIT, mean 30 (SD 4; 95%CI 29.6-30.4), out of a maximum 32 and 40 respectively. A significant positive correlation between GSES and GRIT scores was found (Pearson's r=0.284, p = 0.006). However, no significant differences were identified between pharmacists scoring in the lower and upper quartiles by GSES or GRIT. Overall respondents reported their preferred learning styles were activists (46%) or pragmatists (29%). The majority (91%) preferred blended learning methods as opposed to 38% or less for a range of online methods. CONCLUSIONS: General practice pharmacists on average scored highly for self-efficacy and resilience. Higher scores did not appear to be associated with demographic, years of practice, professional or educational experience. Prospective interventions to support those with lower scores may enhance and optimise pharmacists' effectiveness in general practice

No disponible

Evaluation of discharge prescriptions for secondary prevention in patients with acute coronary syndromes in Iraq

Background: Optimal prescribing of secondary prevention medications after acute coronary syndrome (ACS) events has been shown to reduce morbidity and mortality. However, it is unknown whether these medications are optimally prescribed at discharge from acute care in Iraq. Objective: To evaluate whether patients with ACS received optimal secondary prevention medications: antiplatelets, statins, angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors/angiotensin II receptor blockers (ACEI/ARBs), and beta-blockers at discharge from a cardiology unit, and to assess whether statins, ACEI/ARBs and beta-blockers were prescribed at target doses based on the American Heart Association/American College of Cardiology (AHA/ACC) guidelines. Methods: Observational retrospective cross-sectional study of patients with ACS admitted to a hospital in Baghdad and survived to discharge between May 2016 and January 2017. Patient-level data and secondary prevention medications at discharge were extracted from routine medical records. Optimal dosing was defined as ≥75%, moderate dosing as 50-74%, and low dosing as <50% of the target dose. Results: 45.6% (200/439) of eligible patients were included in the study who were aged 25 to 90 years (mean 57.8 years) with 78.0% (156/200) being male. Of those included, 84.5% had a myocardial infarction and 15.5% unstable angina, and the length of hospital stay ranged from 1 to 29 days (median 4 days). In total, 53.5% of patients were prescribed all five secondary prevention medications at discharge, and after accounting for contraindications, 60.0% were treated according to AHA/ACC guidelines. The prescription rate of dual antiplatelet therapy, statins, ACEI/ARBs and beta-blockers was 92.5%, 94.5%, 69.5% and 87.0% respectively. Hypertension, diabetes mellitus and the prescription of oral nitrates were associated with the prescription of optimal secondary prevention therapy. Although 80.9% of patients were prescribed target doses of antiplatelets and statins, only 12.2% and 9.2% were prescribed target doses of ACEI/ARBs, and beta-blockers respectively. Conclusions: Approximately one in two patients received the recommended secondary prevention therapy. However, only a minority of patients were prescribed optimal doses of ACEI/ARBs and beta-blockers, in line with guidance. Quality improvement strategies should be implemented, which may include greater involvement of pharmacists within the cardiology multidisciplinary team

No disponible