Stakeholder perceptions of and attitudes towards problematic polypharmacy and prescribing cascades: a qualitative study.

INTRODUCTION: Problematic polypharmacy is the prescribing of five or more medications potentially inappropriately. Unintentional prescribing cascades represent an under-researched aspect of problematic polypharmacy and occur when an adverse drug reaction (ADR) is misinterpreted as a new symptom resulting in the initiation of a new medication. The aim of this study was to elicit key stakeholders' perceptions of and attitudes towards problematic polypharmacy, with a focus on prescribing cascades. METHODS: qualitative one-to-one semi-structured interviews were conducted with predefined key stakeholder groups. Inductive thematic analysis was employed. RESULTS: Thirty-one stakeholders were interviewed: six patients, two carers, seven general practitioners, eight pharmacists, four hospital doctors, two professional organisation representatives and two policymakers. Three main themes were identified: (i) ADRs and prescribing cascades-a necessary evil. Healthcare professionals (HCPs) expressed concern that experiencing an ADR would negatively impact patients' confidence in their doctor. However, patients viewed ADRs pragmatically as an unpredictable risk. (ii) Balancing the risk/benefit tipping point. The complexity of prescribing decisions in the context of polypharmacy made balancing this tipping point challenging. Consequently, HCPs avoided medication changes. (iii) The minefield of medication reconciliation. Stakeholders, including patients and carers, viewed medication reconciliation as a perilous activity due to systemic communication deficits. CONCLUSION: Stakeholders believed that at a certain depth of polypharmacy, the risk that a new symptom is being caused by an existing medication becomes incalculable. Therefore, in the absence of harm, medication changes were avoided. However, medication reconciliation post hospital discharge compelled prescribing decisions and was seen as a high-risk activity by stakeholders.

Management of potentially inappropriate medication use among older adult's patients in primary care settings: description of an interventional prospective non-randomized study.

BACKGROUND: The management of inappropriate medication use in older patients suffering from multimorbidity and polymedication is a major healthcare challenge. In a primary care setting, a medication review is an effective tool through which a pharmacist can collaborate with a practitioner to detect inappropriate drug use. AIM: This project described the implementation of a systematic process for the management of potentially inappropriate medication use among Lebanese older adults. Its aim was to involve pharmacists in geriatric care and to suggest treatment optimization through the analysis of prescriptions using explicit and implicit criteria. METHOD: This study evaluated the medications of patients over 65 years taking a minimum of five chronic medications a day in different regions of Lebanon. Descriptive statistics for all the included variables using mean and standard deviation (Mean (SD)) for continuous variables and frequency and percentage (n, (%)) for multinomial variables were then performed. RESULTS: A total of 850 patients (50.7% women, 28.6% frail, 75.7 (8.01) mean age (SD)) were included in this study. The mean number of drugs per prescription was 7.10 (2.45). Roughly 88% of patients (n = 748) had at least one potentially inappropriate drug prescription: 66.4% and 64.4% of the patients had at least 1 drug with an unfavorable benefit-to-risk ratio according to Beers and EU(7)-PIM respectively. Nearly 50.4% of patients took at least one medication with no indication. The pharmacists recommended discontinuing medication for 76.5% of the cases of drug related problems. 26.6% of the overall proposed interventions were implemented. DISCUSSION: The rate of potentially inappropriate drug prescribing (PIDP) (88%) was higher than the rates previously reported in Europe, US, and Canada. It was also higher than studies conducted in Lebanon where it varied from 22.4 to 80% depending on the explicit criteria used, the settings, and the medical conditions of the patients. We used both implicit and explicit criteria with five different lists to improve the detection of all types of inappropriate medication use since Lebanon obtains drugs from many different sources. Another potential source for variation is the lack of a standardized process for the assessment of outpatient medication use in the elderly. CONCLUSION: The prevalence PIDP detected in the sample was higher than the percentages reported in previous literature. Systematic review of prescriptions has the capacity to identify and resolve pharmaceutical care issues thus improving geriatric care.

How to Mitigate Community Harms of Antibacterial Resistance With Patient-Centered Care.

Overprescription of antibiotics in cases in which bacterial infection is clinically uncertain contributes to increased prevalence of multidrug-resistant bacteria. Ethically, merits and drawbacks of stricter prescription practice oversight should be weighed against risks of untreatable bacterial infections to patients and communities. This article considers how to balance this set of ideas and values.

Validation of MyFORTA: An Automated Tool to Improve Medications in Older People Based on the FORTA List.

BACKGROUND: Listing tools have been developed to improve medications in older patients, including the Fit fOR The Aged (FORTA) list, a clinically validated, positive-negative list of medication appropriateness. Here, we aim to validate MyFORTA, an automated tool for individualized application of the FORTA list. METHODS: 331 participants of a multi-center cohort study (AgeCoDe) for whom the FORTA score (sum of overtreatment and undertreatment errors) had been determined manually (gold standard [GS]) were reassessed using the automated MyFORTA (MF) tool. This tool determines the score from ATC and ICD codes combined with clinical parameters. RESULTS: The FORTA scores were 9.01 ± 2.91 (mean ± SD, MF) versus 6.02 ± 2.52 (GS) (p < 0.00001). Removing undertreatment errors for calcium/vitamin D (controversial guidelines) and influenza/pneumococcal vaccinations (no robust information in the database), the difference decreased: 7.5 ± 2.7 (MF) versus 5.98 ± 2.55 (GS) (p < 0.00001). The remaining difference was driven by, for example, missing nitro spray in coronary heart disease/acute coronary syndrome as the related information was rarely found in the database, but notoriously detected by MF. Three hundred and forty errors from those 100 patients with the largest score deviation accounted for 68% of excess errors by MF. CONCLUSION: MF was more sensitive to detect medication errors than GS, all frequent errors only detected by MF were plausible, and almost no adaptations of the MF algorithm seem indicated. This automated tool to check medication appropriateness according to the FORTA list is now validated and represents the first clinically directed algorithm in this context. It should ease the application of FORTA and help to implement the proven beneficial effects of FORTA on clinical endpoints.

Determinants of and interventions for Proton Pump Inhibitor prescription behavior: A systematic scoping review.

BACKGROUND: Proton Pump Inhibitors (PPI) are frequently prescribed. Long-term use is associated with side-effects and patients often lack a valid indication. Inappropriate PPI prescribing thus needs to be addressed. This review aims to scope 1) what determinants are studied as reasons for PPI prescribing, 2) what strategies are used for changing PPI (de)prescribing, and 3) whether important determinants are addressed in these interventions. METHODS: We searched eight databases for papers on determinants of physician PPI prescribing. Studies were included if they were conducted in a Western country and focused on oral PPIs for an adult population. By following the Behaviour Change Wheel, we extracted information regarding PPI prescribing behavior, behavioral determinants and intervention strategies. FINDINGS: We included 74 papers. Most focused on the determinants knowledge and beliefs about consequences. The latter was consistently related to PPI prescribing. Results for knowledge were mixed. Most interventions used education or enablement (e.g., algorithms, quality check improvements, involvement of pharmacists) as strategies. Enablement consistently improved PPI prescribing, while results for education were mixed. INTERPRETATION: There is an overemphasis on reflective processes in studies on PPI prescribing. Future research should comprehensively identify behavioral determinants, focusing on reflective and impulsive processes, such that interventions can address the most important determinants.

Examining Antimicrobial Stewardship Program Implementation in Carceral Settings.

Antimicrobial resistance is a global threat that inequitably affects minoritized populations, including Black, Latinx, and Indigenous people-especially in carceral settings-and is largely driven by inappropriate antimicrobial prescribing practices. People whose identities are minoritized are more likely to be incarcerated, and people who are incarcerated experience higher disease risk than people who are not incarcerated. This article draws on a case of dental infection suffered by a woman who is incarcerated to consider key ethical and clinical complexities of antimicrobial prescribing in carceral settings.

Hungarian general practice paediatricians' antibiotic prescribing behaviour for suspected respiratory tract infections: a qualitative study.

OBJECTIVES: Inappropriate antibiotic prescribing is a major cause of antimicrobial resistance (AMR). The aim of this study was to explore paediatric general practitioners' (GP Peds) antibiotic prescription practice in suspected respiratory tract infections (RTIs), using the capability-opportunity-motivation-behaviour framework. DESIGN: The design is a qualitative study based on individual, semistructured telephone or virtual interviews. SETTING: Paediatric general practice in Hungary. We applied stratified maximum variation sampling to cover the categories of age, sex and geographical location of participants. PARTICIPANTS: We interviewed 22 GP Peds. Nine were male and 13 were female: 2 of them were less than 40 years old, 14 were between 40 and 60 years, and 6 were above 60 years. 10 worked in low-antibiotic prescription areas, 5 in areas with medium levels of antibiotic prescription, 3 in high-antibiotic prescription areas, and 4 in and around the capital city. RESULTS: Study participants had varying antibiotic prescription preferences. Personal experience and physical examination play a central role in GP Peds' diagnostic and treatment practice. Participants emphasised the need to treat children in their entirety, taking their personal medical record, social background and sometimes parents' preferences into account, besides the acute clinical manifestation of RTI. Most respondents were confident they apply the most effective therapy even if, in some cases, this meant prescribing medicines with a higher chance of contributing to the development of AMR. Some participants felt antibiotic prescription frequency has decreased in recent years. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest that a more prudent attitude toward antibiotic prescribing may have become more common but also highlight relevant gaps in both physicians' and public knowledge of antibiotics and AMR. To reinforce awareness and close remaining gaps, Hungary should adopt its national AMR National Action Plan and further increase its efforts towards active professional communication and feedback for primary care physicians.

Prevalence and factors associated with inappropriate continuation of stress ulcer prophylaxis at discharge.

Stress ulcer prophylaxis is started in the critical care unit to decrease the risk of upper gastrointestinal ulcers in critically ill persons and to decrease mortality caused by stress ulcer complications. Unfortunately, the drugs are often continued after recovery through discharge, paving the way for unnecessary polypharmacy. STUDY DESIGN: We conducted a retrospective cross-sectional study including patients admitted to the adult critical care unit and started on the stress ulcer prophylaxis with a proton pump inhibitor (PPI) or histamine receptor 2 blocker (H2 blocker) with an aim to determine the prevalence of inappropriate continuation at discharge and associated factors. RESULT: 3200 people were initiated on stress ulcer prophylaxis, and the medication was continued in 1666 patients upon discharge. Indication for long-term use was not found in 744 of 1666, with a 44% prevalence of inappropriate continuation. A statistically significant association was found with the following risk factors: discharge disposition (home vs other medical facilities, p=0.002), overall length of stay (more than 10 days vs less than or equal to 10 days, p<0.0001), mechanical ventilator use (p<0.001), number of days on a mechanical ventilator (more than 2 days vs less than or equal to 2 days, p<0.001) and class of stress ulcer prophylaxis drug used (H2 blocker vs PPI, p<0.001). CONCLUSION: The prevalence of inappropriate continuation was found to be higher than prior studies. Given the risk of unnecessary medication intake and the associated healthcare cost, a web-based quality improvement initiative is being considered.

Defining, identifying and addressing problematic polypharmacy within multimorbidity in primary care: a scoping review.

INTRODUCTION: Polypharmacy and multimorbidity pose escalating challenges. Despite numerous attempts, interventions have yet to show consistent improvements in health outcomes. A key factor may be varied approaches to targeting patients for intervention. OBJECTIVES: To explore how patients are targeted for intervention by examining the literature with respect to: understanding how polypharmacy is defined; identifying problematic polypharmacy in practice; and addressing problematic polypharmacy through interventions. DESIGN: We performed a scoping review as defined by the Joanna Briggs Institute. SETTING: The focus was on primary care settings. DATA SOURCES: Medline, Embase, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature and Cochrane along with ClinicalTrials.gov, Science.gov and WorldCat.org were searched from January 2004 to February 2024. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: We included all articles that had a focus on problematic polypharmacy in multimorbidity and primary care, incorporating multiple types of evidence, such as reviews, quantitative trials, qualitative studies and policy documents. Articles focussing on a single index disease or not written in English were excluded. EXTRACTION AND ANALYSIS: We performed a narrative synthesis, comparing themes and findings across the collective evidence to draw contextualised insights and conclusions. RESULTS: In total, 157 articles were included. Case-finding methods often rely on basic medication counts (often five or more) without considering medical history or whether individual medications are clinically appropriate. Other approaches highlight specific drug indicators and interactions as potentially inappropriate prescribing, failing to capture a proportion of patients not fitting criteria. Different potentially inappropriate prescribing criteria also show significant inconsistencies in determining the appropriateness of medications, often neglecting to consider multimorbidity and underprescribing. This may hinder the identification of the precise population requiring intervention. CONCLUSIONS: Improved strategies are needed to target patients with polypharmacy, which should consider patient perspectives, individual factors and clinical appropriateness. The development of a cross-cutting measure of problematic polypharmacy that consistently incorporates adjustment for multimorbidity may be a valuable next step to address frequent confounding.

Managing polypharmacy through medication review tools - pros and cons.

Inappropriate polypharmacy is a common occurrence in elderly patients, resulting in increased adverse drug reactions, nonadherence, and increased healthcare costs. Medication review and deprescribing are the primary strategies described in the literature for dealing with problematic polypharmacy. To effectively carry out the medication review, various tools have been developed. These tools can support medication review in a variety of ways. Some tools include a list of medications requiring detailed attention, while others guide medical professionals with principles and algorithms for reviewing and prescribing medicines. A third category of tools focuses on tracking and identifying symptoms that may be due to drug-related problems.

Deprescribing of antidepressants: development of indicators of high-risk and overprescribing using the RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method.

BACKGROUND: Antidepressants are first-line medications for many psychiatric disorders. However, their widespread long-term use in some indications (e.g., mild depression and insomnia) is concerning. Particularly in older adults with comorbidities and polypharmacy, who are more susceptible to adverse drug reactions, the risks and benefits of treatment should be regularly reviewed. The aim of this consensus process was to identify explicit criteria of potentially inappropriate antidepressant use (indicators) in order to support primary care clinicians in identifying situations, where deprescribing of antidepressants should be considered. METHODS: We used the RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method to identify the indicators of high-risk and overprescribing of antidepressants. We combined a structured literature review with a 3-round expert panel, with results discussed in moderated meetings in between rounds. Each of the 282 candidate indicators was scored on a 9-point Likert scale representing the necessity of a critical review of antidepressant continuation (1-3 = not necessary; 4-6 = uncertain; 7-9 = clearly necessary). Experts rated the indicators for the necessity of review, since decisions to deprescribe require considerations of patient risk/benefit balance and preferences. Indicators with a median necessity rating of ≥ 7 without disagreement after 3 rating rounds were accepted. RESULTS: The expert panel comprised 2 general practitioners, 2 clinical pharmacologists, 1 gerontopsychiatrist, 2 psychiatrists, and 3 internists/geriatricians (total N = 10). After 3 assessment rounds, there was consensus for 37 indicators of high-risk and 25 indicators of overprescribing, where critical reviews were felt to be necessary. High-risk prescribing indicators included settings posing risks of drug-drug, drug-disease, and drug-age interactions or the occurrence of adverse drug reactions. Indicators with the highest ratings included those suggesting the possibility of cardiovascular risks (QTc prolongation), delirium, gastrointestinal bleeding, and liver injury in specific patient subgroups with additional risk factors. Overprescribing indicators target patients with long treatment durations for depression, anxiety, and insomnia as well as high doses for pain and insomnia. CONCLUSIONS: Explicit indicators of antidepressant high-risk and overprescribing may be used directly by patients and health care providers, and integrated within clinical decision support tools, in order to improve the overall risk/benefit balance of this commonly prescribed class of prescription drugs.

Community pharmacists' awareness, identification, and management of prescribing cascades: A cross-sectional survey.

BACKGROUND: Prescribing cascades can lead to unnecessary medication use, healthcare costs, and patient harm. Pharmacists oversee prescriptions from multiple prescribers and are well positioned to identify such cascades, making pharmacists key stakeholders to address them. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate community pharmacists' awareness, identification, and management of prescribing cascades and to assess behavioural determinants that may be targeted in future strategies to minimise inappropriate prescribing cascades. METHODS: An online survey was developed using the Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF) and emailed to all registered community pharmacists in Ireland (n = 3775) in November 2021. Quantitative data were analysed using descriptive and inferential statistics. Free-text sections were given to capture reasons for non-resolution of identified prescribing cascades and suggestions to aid prescribing cascade identification and management; this text underwent content analysis. RESULTS: Of the 220 respondents, 51% were aware of the term 'prescribing cascade' before the survey, whilst 69% had identified a potentially inappropriate prescribing cascade in practice. Over one third were either slightly confident (26.4%) or not confident at all (10%) in their ability to identify potentially inappropriate prescribing cascades in patients' prescriptions before the survey, whilst 55.2% were concerned that patients were receiving prescribing cascades they had not identified. Most respondents wanted further information/training to help prescribing cascade identification (88.3%) and management (86.1%). Four predominant TDF domains identified were common to both i) influencing non-resolution of identified prescribing cascades and ii) in the suggestions to help identify and manage prescribing cascades: 'Environmental Context and Resources', 'Social/Professional Role and Identity', 'Social Influences' and 'Memory, Attention and Decision Processes'. CONCLUSIONS: There is a clear need to provide additional resources to help community pharmacists identify and manage prescribing cascades. These findings will support the development of theory-informed behaviour change strategies to aid the minimisation of inappropriate prescribing cascades and decrease the risk of medication-related harm for patients.

Determinants of appropriate antibiotic and NSAID prescribing in unscheduled outpatient settings in the veterans health administration.

BACKGROUND: Despite efforts to enhance the quality of medication prescribing in outpatient settings, potentially inappropriate prescribing remains common, particularly in unscheduled settings where patients can present with infectious and pain-related complaints. Two of the most commonly prescribed medication classes in outpatient settings with frequent rates of potentially inappropriate prescribing include antibiotics and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs). In the setting of persistent inappropriate prescribing, we sought to understand a diverse set of perspectives on the determinants of inappropriate prescribing of antibiotics and NSAIDs in the Veterans Health Administration. METHODS: We conducted a qualitative study guided by the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research and Theory of Planned Behavior. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with clinicians, stakeholders, and Veterans from March 1, 2021 through December 31, 2021 within the Veteran Affairs Health System in unscheduled outpatient settings at the Tennessee Valley Healthcare System. Stakeholders included clinical operations leadership and methodological experts. Audio-recorded interviews were transcribed and de-identified. Data coding and analysis were conducted by experienced qualitative methodologists adhering to the Consolidated Criteria for Reporting Qualitative Studies guidelines. Analysis was conducted using an iterative inductive/deductive process. RESULTS: We conducted semi-structured interviews with 66 participants: clinicians (N = 25), stakeholders (N = 24), and Veterans (N = 17). We identified six themes contributing to potentially inappropriate prescribing of antibiotics and NSAIDs: 1) Perceived versus actual Veterans expectations about prescribing; 2) the influence of a time-pressured clinical environment on prescribing stewardship; 3) Limited clinician knowledge, awareness, and willingness to use evidence-based care; 4) Prescriber uncertainties about the Veteran condition at the time of the clinical encounter; 5) Limited communication; and 6) Technology barriers of the electronic health record and patient portal. CONCLUSIONS: The diverse perspectives on prescribing underscore the need for interventions that recognize the detrimental impact of high workload on prescribing stewardship and the need to design interventions with the end-user in mind. This study revealed actionable themes that could be addressed to improve guideline concordant prescribing to enhance the quality of prescribing and to reduce patient harm.

Reducing potentially inappropriate polypharmacy at a national and international level: the impact of deprescribing networks.

INTRODUCTION: Over the past decade, polypharmacy has increased dramatically. Measurable harms include falls, fractures, cognitive impairment, and death. The associated costs are massive and contribute substantially to low-value health care. Deprescribing is a promising solution, but there are barriers. Establishing a network to address polypharmacy can help overcome barriers by connecting individuals with an interest and expertise in deprescribing and can act as an important source of motivation and resources. AREAS COVERED: Over the past decade, several deprescribing networks were launched to help tackle polypharmacy, with evidence of individual and collective impact. A network approach has several advantages; it can spark interest, ideas and enthusiasm through information sharing, meetings and conversations with the public, providers, and other key stakeholders. In this special report, the details of how four deprescribing networks were established across the globe are detailed. EXPERT OPINION: Networks create links between people who lead existing and/or budding deprescribing practices and policy initiatives, can influence people with a shared passion for deprescribing, and facilitate sharing of intellectual capital and tools to take initiatives further and strengthen impact.This report should inspire others to establish their own deprescribing networks, a critical step in accelerating a global deprescribing movement.

Structured medication reviews for adults with multimorbidity and polypharmacy in primary care: a systematic review protocol.

INTRODUCTION: Polypharmacy is common among individuals with multimorbidity, often leading to inappropriate medication use and is associated with an increased risk of frailty, hospitalisation and mortality. Structured medication reviews (SMRs) have emerged as a promising method for optimising medication use. However, research examining their efficacy is limited. This review aims to evaluate the impact of SMRs on improving outcomes for adults with multimorbidity and polypharmacy in primary care settings. Additionally, this review seeks to identify prevailing patterns and trends in the mode of delivery of SMRs. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: A systematic review will be conducted using Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid EMBASE, Web of Science and CINAHL (1997-present). Primary outcomes will include medication-related measures such as dose, frequency and dosage form. Secondary outcomes under investigation will include physical, mental, functional and health service outcomes, as reported. Two independent reviewers will conduct the screening and data extraction, resolving disagreements through discussion. Once eligible studies are identified, the extracted data will be summarised in tabular format. The risk of bias in the articles will be assessed using either the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2 tool or the Newcastle-Ottawa scale, depending on the design of the studies retrieved. Subgroup analysis will be performed using demographic variables and modes of delivery where the data supports. If appropriate, a meta-analysis of the data extracted will be conducted to determine the impact of the SMRs on reported outcomes. If a meta-analysis is not possible due to heterogeneity, a narrative synthesis approach will be adopted. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This proposed review is exempt from ethical approval as it aims to collate and summarise peer-reviewed, published evidence. This protocol and the subsequent review will be disseminated in peer-reviewed journals, conferences and patient-led lay summaries. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42023454965.