Thematic analysis of Prevention of Future Death reports for suicide: January 2021 to October 2022.

BACKGROUND: Suicide prevention remains a high priority topic across government and the National Health Service (NHS). Prevention of Future Death (PFD) reports are produced by coroners to highlight concerns that should be addressed by organisations to prevent future deaths in similar circumstances. OBJECTIVE: This research aimed to understand themes from concerns raised in PFD reports for deaths from suicide to inform future policies and strategies for preventing suicide. METHODS: We employed a retrospective case series design to analyse PFD reports categorised as suicide using qualitative inductive thematic analysis. Primary themes and subthemes were extracted from coroners' concerns. Following theme extraction, the number of concerns coded to these themes across reports and the frequency of recipient organisation being named as addressee on these reports were assessed as primary outcomes. FINDINGS: 12 primary themes and 83 subthemes were identified from 164 reports (4% of all available reports). The NHS was the most frequent recipient of these reports, followed by government departments. Coroners raised issues around processes within or between organisations and difficulties accessing services. The most common concerns fell under the primary theme 'processes' (142 mentions), followed by 'access to services' (84 mentions). The most frequent subthemes were 'current training not adequate' (38 mentions) and 'inadequate communication between services' (35 mentions). CONCLUSIONS: Our results specify areas where review, improvement and policy development are required to prevent future suicide deaths occurring in similar circumstances. CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS: These themes highlight concerns across current care and service provision where reform is required for suicide prevention.

Phencyclidine Disrupts Neural Coordination and Cognitive Control by Dysregulating Translation.

Background: Phencyclidine (PCP) causes psychosis, is abused with increasing frequency, and was extensively used in antipsychotic drug discovery. PCP discoordinates hippocampal ensemble action potential discharge and impairs cognitive control in rats, but how this uncompetitive NMDA receptor (NMDAR) antagonist impairs cognition remains unknown. Methods: The effects of PCP were investigated on hippocampal CA1 ensemble action potential discharge in vivo in urethane-anesthetized rats and during awake behavior in mice, on synaptic responses in ex vivo mouse hippocampus slices, in mice on a hippocampus-dependent active place avoidance task that requires cognitive control, and on activating the molecular machinery of translation in acute hippocampus slices. Mechanistic causality was assessed by comparing the PCP effects with the effects of inhibitors of protein synthesis, group I metabotropic glutamate receptors (mGluR1/5), and subunit-selective NMDARs. Results: Consistent with ionotropic actions, PCP discoordinated CA1 ensemble action potential discharge. PCP caused hyperactivity and impaired active place avoidance, despite the rodents having learned the task before PCP administration. Consistent with metabotropic actions, PCP exaggerated protein synthesis-dependent DHPG-induced mGluR1/5-stimulated long-term synaptic depression. Pretreatment with anisomycin or the mGluR1/5 antagonist MPEP, both of which repress translation, prevented PCP-induced discoordination and the cognitive and sensorimotor impairments. PCP as well as the NR2A-containing NMDAR antagonist NVP-AAM077 unbalanced translation that engages the Akt, mTOR (mechanistic target of rapamycin), and 4EBP1 translation machinery and increased protein synthesis, whereas the NR2B-containing antagonist Ro25-6981 did not. Conclusions: PCP dysregulates translation, acting through NR2A-containing NMDAR subtypes, recruiting mGluR1/5 signaling pathways, and leading to neural discoordination that is central to the cognitive and sensorimotor impairments.

Risk and protective factors for suicidality among lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer (LGBTQ+) young people, from countries with a high global acceptance index (GAI), within the context of the socio-ecological model: A scoping review.

INTRODUCTION: Lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer (LGBTQ+) young people experience higher prevalence rates of suicidality than their heterosexual and/or cisgender peers. However, there is limited research that can inform suicide prevention efforts. Our aim was to synthesize quantitative, qualitative, and mixed methods research on risk and protective factors among LGBTQ+ young people, from countries with a high Global Acceptance Index. METHODS: A scoping review guided by Arksey and O'Malley's five-stage framework, using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analysis Extension for Scoping Reviews protocol. Five databases and grey literature were searched for relevant studies. Identified factors were clustered by thematic type, according to the socio-ecological model to identify empirical trends and knowledge gaps. The mixed methods appraisal tool was used for quality assessment of studies. RESULTS: Sixty-six studies met our inclusion criteria. Overall, 59 unique risk factors and 37 unique protective factors were identified. Key risk factors include past suicidality, adverse childhood experiences, internalized queerphobia, minority stress, interpersonal violence, bullying, familial conflict, and anti-LGBTQ+ policies/legislation. Key protective factors include self-affirming strategies, adult/peer support, at-school safety, access to inclusive healthcare, family connectedness, positive coming out experiences, gender-affirming services and LGBTQ+ inclusive policies and legislation. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, our findings affirm that multiple risk and protective factors, at all levels of the socio-ecological model, interact in complex, unique and diverse ways upon suicidality among LGBTQ+ young people. Implications for suicide prevention are discussed. Further empirical studies are required, particularly at the communities, policies, and societal levels of the socio-ecological model, and these studies should include a focus on protective factors and significant within-group differences.

Potentially Inappropriate Prescribing and Potential Prescribing Omissions and Their Association with Adverse Drug Reaction-Related Hospital Admissions.

BACKGROUND: This study aimed to determine the prevalence of potentially inappropriate prescribing (PIP) and potential prescribing omissions (PPOs) and their association with ADR-related hospital admissions in patients aged ≥ 65 years admitted acutely to the hospital. METHODS: Information on medications and morbidities was extracted from the Adverse Drug Reactions in an Ageing Population (ADAPT) cohort (N = 798: N = 361 ADR-related admissions; 437 non-ADR-related admissions). PIP and PPOs were assessed using Beers Criteria 2019 and STOPP/START version 2. Multivariable logistic regression (adjusted odds ratios (aOR), 95%CI) was used to examine the association between PIP, PPOs and ADR-related admissions, adjusting for covariates (age, gender, comorbidity, polypharmacy). RESULTS: In total, 715 (90%; 95% CI 87-92%) patients had ≥1 Beers Criteria, 555 (70%; 95% CI 66-73%) had ≥ 1 STOPP criteria and 666 patients (83%; 95% CI 81-86%) had ≥ 1 START criteria. Being prescribed at least one Beers (aOR = 1.66, 95% CI = 1.00-2.77), or meeting STOPP (aOR = 1.07, 95% CI = 0.79-1.45) or START (aOR = 0.72; 95%CI = 0.50-1.06) criteria or the number of PIP/PPO criteria met was not significantly associated with ADR-related admissions. Patients prescribed certain drug classes (e.g., antiplatelet agents, diuretics) per individual PIP criteria were more likely to have an ADR-related admission. CONCLUSION: There was a high prevalence of PIP and PPOs in this cohort but no association with ADR-related admissions.

Prescribing cascades in ambulatory care: A structured synthesis of evidence.

The strength of evidence for specific ambulatory care prescribing cascades, in which a marker drug is used to treat an adverse event caused by an index drug, has not been well characterized. To perform a structured, systematic, and transparent review of the evidence supporting ambulatory care prescribing cascades. Ninety-four potential prescribing cascades identified through a previously published systematic review. Systematic search of the literature to further characterize prescribing cascades. (1) Grading of evidence based on observational studies investigating associations between index and marker drugs, including: Level I-strong evidence [i.e. multiple high-quality studies]; Level II-moderate evidence [i.e. single high-quality study]; Level III-fair evidence [no high-quality studies but one or more moderate-quality studies]; and Level IV-poor evidence [other]. (2) Listing of the adverse event associated with the index drug in the product's United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) label. (3) Synthesis of the evidence supporting mechanisms linking index drugs and associated adverse events. Of 99 potential cascades, 94 were supported by one or more confirmatory observational studies and were therefore included in this review. The 94 cascades related to 30 types of adverse drug reactions affecting 10 different anatomic/physiologic systems and were investigated by a total of 88 confirmatory studies, including prescription sequential symmetry analysis (n = 51), cohort (n = 30), and case-control (n = 7) studies. Overall, the evidence from observational studies was strong for 18 (19.1%) prescribing cascades, moderate for 61 (64.9%), fair for 13 (13.8%), and poor for 2 (2.1%). Although the evidence supporting mechanisms that link index drugs and associated adverse events was variable, FDA labels included information about the adverse event associated with the index drug for most (n = 86) but not all of the 94 prescribing cascades. Although we identified 18 of 94 prescribing cascades supported by strong clinical evidence and most adverse events associated with index drugs are included in FDA label, the evidentiary basis for prescribing cascades varies, with many requiring further evidence of clinical relevance.

In the thick of it: A commentary on the strength of evidence for thickened fluids.

Purpose: The efficacy of thickened fluids for individuals with dysphagia has come under increasing scrutiny among healthcare professionals. This commentary provides a critical appraisal of the research evidence and presents a balanced argument on the benefits and limitations of thickened fluids in dysphagia management. By doing so, we aim to engage the readership to think critically about this controversial topic and make informed, patient-centered decisions regarding the use of thickened fluids in dysphagia management.Result/Conclusion: We argue that, while the research evidence for the use of thickened fluids in dysphagia management continues to grow, perhaps our problem lies in trying to find one pure answer-to thicken or not to thicken. We encourage clinicians to move past arguments about the controversies of thickened fluids and, rather, use the current evidence base, including research evidence, clinical expertise, and patient preferences to support individuals with dysphagia to make informed choices about their oral intake, in the short and long term.

Clinician consensus on "Inappropriate" presentations to the Emergency Department in the Better Data, Better Planning (BDBP) census: a cross-sectional multi-centre study of emergency department utilisation in Ireland.

BACKGROUND: Utilisation of the Emergency Department (ED) for non-urgent care increases demand for services, therefore reducing inappropriate or avoidable attendances is an important area for intervention in prevention of ED crowding. This study aims to develop a consensus between clinicians across care settings about the "appropriateness" of attendances to the ED in Ireland. METHODS: The Better Data, Better Planning study was a multi-centre, cross-sectional study investigating factors influencing ED utilisation in Ireland. Data was compiled in patient summary files which were assessed for measures of appropriateness by an academic General Practitioner (GP) and academic Emergency Medicine Consultant (EMC) National Panel. In cases where consensus was not reached charts were assessed by an Independent Review Panel (IRP). At each site all files were autonomously assessed by local GP-EMC panels. RESULTS: The National Panel determined that 11% (GP) to 38% (EMC) of n = 306 lower acuity presentations could be treated by a GP within 24-48 h (k = 0.259; p < 0.001) and that 18% (GP) to 35% (EMC) of attendances could be considered "inappropriate" (k = 0.341; p < 0.001). For attendances deemed "appropriate" the admission rate was 47% compared to 0% for "inappropriate" attendees. There was no consensus on 45% of charts (n = 136). Subset analysis by the IRP determined that consensus for appropriate attendances ranged from 0 to 59% and for inappropriate attendances ranged from 0 to 29%. For the Local Panel review (n = 306) consensus on appropriateness ranged from 40 to 76% across ED sites. CONCLUSIONS: Multidisciplinary clinicians agree that "inappropriate" use of the ED in Ireland is an issue. However, obtaining consensus on appropriateness of attendance is challenging and there was a significant cohort of complex heterogenous presentations where agreement could not be reached by clinicians in this study. This research again demonstrates the complexity of ED crowding, the introduction of evidence-based care pathways targeting avoidable presentations may serve to alleviate the problem in our EDs.

The effects of advanced factor analysis approaches on outcomes in randomised trials for depression: protocol for secondary analysis of individual participant data.

BACKGROUND: Modern psychometric methods make it possible to eliminate nonperforming items and reduce measurement error. Application of these methods to existing outcome measures can reduce variability in scores, and may increase treatment effect sizes in depression treatment trials. AIMS: We aim to determine whether using confirmatory factor analysis techniques can provide better estimates of the true effects of treatments, by conducting secondary analyses of individual patient data from randomised trials of antidepressant therapies. METHOD: We will access individual patient data from antidepressant treatment trials through Clinicalstudydatarequest.com and Vivli.org, specifically targeting studies that used the Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (HRSD) as the outcome measure. Exploratory and confirmatory factor analytic approaches will be used to determine pre-treatment (baseline) and post-treatment models of depression, in terms of the number of factors and weighted scores of each item. Differences in the derived factor scores between baseline and outcome measurements will yield an effect size for factor-informed depression change. The difference between the factor-informed effect size and each original trial effect size, calculated with total HRSD-17 scores, will be determined, and the differences modelled with meta-analytic approaches. Risk differences for proportions of patients who achieved remission will also be evaluated. Furthermore, measurement invariance methods will be used to assess potential gender differences. CONCLUSIONS: Our approach will determine whether adopting advanced psychometric analyses can improve precision and better estimate effect sizes in antidepressant treatment trials. The proposed methods could have implications for future trials and other types of studies that use patient-reported outcome measures.

GP preferences for, access to, and use of evidence in clinical practice: a mixed-methods study.

BACKGROUND: GPs aim to provide patient-centred care combining clinical evidence, clinical judgement, and patient priorities. Despite a recognition of the need to translate evidence to support patient care, barriers exist to the use of evidence in practice. AIM: To ascertain the needs and preferences of GPs regarding evidence-based guidance to support patient care. The study also aimed to prioritise content and optimise structure and dissemination of future evidence-based guidance. DESIGN & SETTING: This was a convergent parallel mixed-methods study in collaboration with the national GP professional body in the Republic of Ireland (Irish College of General Practitioners [ICGP]). Quantitative and qualitative findings were integrated at the interpretive level. METHOD: A national GP survey was administered via the ICGP (December 2020) and seven GP focus groups were undertaken (April-May 2021). RESULTS: Of 3496 GPs, a total of 509 responders (14.6%) completed the survey and 40 GP participants took part in focus groups. Prescribing updates, interpretation of test results, chronic disease management, and older person care were the preferred topics for future evidence-based guidance. GPs reported that they required rapid access to up-to-date and relevant evidence summaries online for use in clinical practice. Access to more comprehensive reviews for the purposes of continuing education and teaching was also a priority. Multimodal forms of dissemination were preferred to increase uptake of evidence in practice. CONCLUSION: GPs indicated that rapid access to up-to-date, summarised evidence-based resources, available from their professional organisation, is preferred. Evidence should reflect the disease burden of the population and involve multifaceted dissemination approaches.

The impact of lidocaine plaster prescribing reduction strategies: A comparison of two national health services in Europe.

AIMS: In 2017, two distinct interventions were implemented in Ireland and England to reduce prescribing of lidocaine medicated plasters. In Ireland, restrictions on reimbursement were introduced through implementation of an application system for reimbursement. In England, updated guidance on items which should not be routinely prescribed in primary care, including lidocaine plasters, was published. This study aims to compare how the interventions impacted prescribing of lidocaine plasters in these countries. METHODS: We conducted an interrupted time-series study using general practice data. For Ireland, monthly dispensing data (2015-2019) from the means-tested General Medical Services (GMS) scheme was used. For England, data covered all patients. Outcomes were the rate of dispensings, quantity and costs of lidocaine plasters, and we modelled level and trend changes from the first full month of the policy/guidance change. RESULTS: Ireland had higher rates of lidocaine dispensings compared to England throughout the study period; this was 15.22/1000 population immediately pre-intervention, and there was equivalent to a 97.2% immediate reduction following the intervention. In England, the immediate pre-intervention dispensing rate was 0.36/1000, with an immediate reduction of 0.0251/1000 (a 5.8% decrease), followed by a small but significant decrease in the monthly trend relative to the pre-intervention trend of 0.0057 per month. CONCLUSIONS: Among two different interventions aiming to decrease low-value lidocaine plaster prescribing, there was a substantially larger impact in Ireland of reimbursement restriction compared to issuing guidance in England. However, this is in the context of much higher baseline rates of use in Ireland compared to England.

Association between patient attitudes towards deprescribing and subsequent prescription changes.

Deprescribing is an essential component of safe prescribing, especially for people with higher levels of polypharmacy. Identifying individuals prepared to consider medicine changes may facilitate deprescribing-orientated reviews. We aimed to explore the relationship between revised patients' attitudes towards deprescribing (rPATD) scores and medication changes in older people prescribed ≥15 medicines. A secondary analysis of rPATD scores and prescription data from a cluster randomised controlled trial of a GP-delivered, deprescribing-orientated medication review was conducted. The association between number of medicines stopped, started and changed and baseline rPATD scores was assessed using Poisson regression, adjusting for patient age, gender, study group allocation, baseline number of medicines and effects of clustering. Participants (n = 404) had a mean age of 76.4 years and were prescribed a mean of 17.1 medicines at baseline. Willingness to stop a medicine was associated with higher rates of both deprescribing (IRR: 1.40; 95% CI: 1.06-1.84) and initiating medicines (IRR: 1.43; 95% CI: 1.09-1.88). Satisfaction with current medicines was associated with a lower rate of deprescribing (IRR: 0.69; 95% CI: 0.57-0.85). The rPATD questionnaire could be used as part of a deprescribing intervention to identify participants who may be prepared to engage in deprescribing, enabling more efficient use of clinician time during complex consultations.

Exploring the Multidimensional Relationship Between Medication Beliefs and Adherence to Medications Among Older Adults Living With Multimorbidity Using Polynomial Regression: An Observational Cohort Study.

BACKGROUND: People living with multimorbidity may hold complex beliefs about medicines, potentially influencing adherence. Polynomial regression offers a novel approach to examining the multidimensional relationship between medication beliefs and adherence, overcoming limitations associated with difference scores. PURPOSE: To explore the multidimensional relationship between medication beliefs and adherence among people living with multimorbidity. METHODS: Secondary analysis was conducted using observational data from a cohort of older adults living with ≥2 chronic conditions, recruited from 15 family practices in Ireland in 2010 (n = 812) and followed up in 2012 (n = 515). Medication beliefs were measured with the Beliefs about Medicines Questionnaire-Specific. Adherence was assessed with the medication possession ratio using prescription data from the national primary care reimbursement service. Polynomial regression was used to explore the best-fitting multidimensional models for the relationship between (i) beliefs and adherence at baseline, and (ii) beliefs at baseline and adherence at follow-up. RESULTS: Confirmatory polynomial regression rejected the difference-score model, and exploratory polynomial regression indicated quadratic models for both analyses. Reciprocal effects were present in both analyses (slope [Analysis 1]: ß = 0.08, p = .007; slope [Analysis 2]: ß = 0.07, p = .044), indicating that adherence was higher when necessity beliefs were high and concern beliefs were low. Nonreciprocal effects were also present in both analyses (slope [Analysis 1]: ß = 0.05, p = .006; slope [Analysis 2]: ß = 0.04, p = .043), indicating that adherence was higher when both necessity and concern beliefs were high. CONCLUSIONS: Among people living with multimorbidity, there is evidence that the relationship between medication beliefs and adherence is multidimensional. Attempts to support adherence should consider the combined role of necessity and concern beliefs.

When people live with multiple ongoing health conditions, they might have complex beliefs about their prescribed medicines. These beliefs could relate to the perceived necessity of medicines (necessity beliefs) and perceived concerns about medicines (concern beliefs). This study aimed to explore how necessity and concern beliefs, in combination, relate to the extent to which people living with multiple ongoing conditions take their medicines as prescribed. The study analyzed an existing dataset that included 812 older adults recruited via family practice settings in Ireland in 2010. Of these, 515 people were followed up again in 2012. All participants were living with at least two ongoing health conditions. Participants self-reported their medication-related necessity and concern beliefs by completing a questionnaire. Their level of medication taking was calculated using pharmacy records. The results showed that having a combination of high necessity beliefs and low concern beliefs was related to higher levels of medication taking than having a combination of low necessity beliefs and high concern beliefs. Having a combination of high necessity beliefs and high concern beliefs was related to higher levels of medication taking than having a combination of low necessity beliefs and low concern beliefs. Attempts to support patients to take their medicines should consider the combined role of their necessity and concern beliefs on behavior.

Are we there yet?' Distance to definitive care for Irish patients in the Better Data, Better Planning (BDBP) study.

BACKGROUND: Residing long distances from definitive care compromises patient safety and, in rural Ireland, travel distance to health care can be substantial, particularly in light of national General Practitioner (GP) shortages and hospital reconfigurations. The aim of this research is to describe the profile of patients attending Irish Emergency Departments (EDs) in terms of distance from GP care and definitive care in the ED. METHOD: The 'Better Data, Better Planning' (BDBP) census was a multi-centre, cross-sectional study of n=5 urban and rural EDs in Ireland throughout 2020. At each site, all adults presenting over a 24-h census period were eligible for inclusion. Data were collected on demographics, healthcare utilisation, service awareness and factors influencing the decision to attend the ED, with analysis in SPSS. RESULTS: For n=306 participants, median distance to a GP was 3 km (range 1-100 km) and median distance to the ED was 15 km (range 1-160km). Most participants (n=167, 58%) lived within 5 km of their GP and within 10 km of the ED (n=114, 38%). However, 8% of patients lived ≥15 km from their GP and 9% of patients lived ≥50 km from their nearest ED. Patients living >50 km from the ED were more likely to be transported by Ambulance (p<0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Proximity to health services, by geographical location, is poorer in rural regions, so it's important that these patients have equity of access to definitive care. Therefore, expansion of alternative care pathways in the community and additional resourcing of the National Ambulance Service with enhanced aeromedical support is essential in the future.

Adverse drug reactions and associated patient characteristics in older community-dwelling adults: a 6-year prospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: To date, research on adverse drug reactions (ADRs) has focused on secondary care, and there is a paucity of studies that have prospectively examined ADRs affecting older adults in general practice. AIM: To examine the cumulative incidence and severity of ADRs and associated patient characteristics in a sample of community-dwelling older adults. DESIGN AND SETTING: Prospective cohort study of older adults (aged ≥70 years, N = 592) recruited from 15 general practices in the Republic of Ireland. METHOD: Manual review of the participant's general practice electronic medical record, linked to the national dispensed prescription medicine database, and a detailed, self-reported patient postal questionnaire. The primary outcomes were ADR occurrence and severity over a 6-year period (2010-2016). Unadjusted and adjusted logistic regression models examined potential associations between patient characteristics and ADR occurrence. RESULTS: A total of 211 ADRs were recorded for 159 participants, resulting in a cumulative incidence of 26.9% over 6 years. The majority of ADRs detected were mild (89.1%), with the remainder classified as moderate (10.9%). Eight moderate ADRs, representing 34.8% of moderate ADRs and 3.8% of all ADRs, required an emergency hospital admission. ADRs were independently associated with female sex (adjusted odds ratio [OR] 1.83, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.17 to 2.85; P = 0.008), polypharmacy (5-9 drug classes) (adjusted OR 1.81, 95% CI = 1.17 to 2.82; P = 0.008), and major polypharmacy (≥10 drug classes) (adjusted OR = 3.33, 95% CI = 1.62 to 6.85; P = 0.001). CONCLUSION: This prospective cohort study of ADRs in general practice shows that over one-quarter of older adults experienced an ADR over a 6-year period. Polypharmacy is independently associated with ADR risk in general practice and older adults on ≥10 drug classes should be prioritised for regular medication review.

A scoping review of evidence-based guidance and guidelines published by general practice professional organizations.

BACKGROUND: General practitioners (GPs) need robust, up-to-date evidence to deliver high-quality patient care. There is limited literature regarding the role of international GP professional organizations in developing and publishing clinical guidelines to support GPs clinical decision making. OBJECTIVE: To identify evidence-based guidance and clinical guidelines produced by GP professional organizations and summarize their content, structure, and methods of development and dissemination. METHODS: Scoping review of GP professional organizations following Joanna Briggs Institute guidance. Four databases were searched and a grey literature search was conducted. Studies were included if they were: (i) evidence-based guidance documents or clinical guidelines produced de novo by a national GP professional organization, (ii) developed to support GPs clinical care, and (iii) published in the last 10 years. GP professional organizations were contacted to provide supplementary information. A narrative synthesis was performed. RESULTS: Six GP professional organizations and 60 guidelines were included. The most common de novo guideline topics were mental health, cardiovascular disease, neurology, pregnancy and women's health and preventive care. All guidelines were developed using a standard evidence-synthesis method. All included documents were disseminated through downloadable pdfs and peer review publications. GP professional organizations indicated that they generally collaborate with or endorse guidelines developed by national or international guideline producing bodies. CONCLUSION: The findings of this scoping review provide an overview of de novo guideline development by GP professional organizations and can support collaboration between GP organizations worldwide thus reducing duplication of effort, facilitating reproducibility, and identifying areas of standardization. PROTOCOL REGISTRATION: Open Science Framework: https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/JXQ26.

Medication changes and potentially inappropriate prescribing in older patients with significant polypharmacy.

BACKGROUND: Number of medicines and medicines appropriateness are often used as outcome measures to evaluate the effectiveness of deprescribing interventions. AIM: The aim of this study was to evaluate changes in prescribing, potentially inappropriate prescriptions (PIP) and prescribing of low-value medicines in older people with multimorbidity and significant polypharmacy. METHOD: This study was a retrospective secondary analysis of prescription data from a cluster randomised controlled trial involving 404 participants aged ≥ 65 years and prescribed ≥ 15 repeat medicines from 51 different general practices. For this study, repeat medications at baseline and follow-up (~ 1 year later) were assigned Anatomical Therapeutic Classification (ATC) codes. Outcomes were the most commonly prescribed and potentially inappropriately prescribed drug groups, the most frequently discontinued or initiated drug groups and the number of changes per person between baseline and follow-up. RESULTS: There were 7051 medicines prescribed to 404 participants at baseline. There was a median of 17 medicines (IQR 15-19) at baseline and 16 (IQR 14-19) at follow-up. PIP represented 17.1% of prescriptions at baseline and 15.7% (n = 6777) at follow-up. There were reductions in the prescription of most drug groups with the largest reduction in antiplatelet prescriptions. Considering medication discontinuations, initiations and switches, there was a median of five medication changes per person (range 0-30, IQR 3-9) by follow-up. There were 95 low-value prescriptions at baseline reducing to 78 at follow-up. CONCLUSION: The number of medication changes per person was not reflected by summarising medication count at two time points, highlighting the complexity of prescribing for patients with polypharmacy. Frequent medication changes has potentially important implications for patients in terms of adherence and medication safety. TRIAL REGISTRY: The SPPiRE trial was registered prospectively on the ISRCTN registry (ISRCTN12752680).

Perspectives on the production, and use, of rapid evidence in decision making during the COVID-19 pandemic: a qualitative study.

OBJECTIVES: To describe perceptions of providing, and using rapid evidence, to support decision making by two national bodies (one public health policy and one front-line clinical practice) during the COVID-19 pandemic. DESIGN: Descriptive qualitative study (March-August 2020): 25 semistructured interviews were conducted, transcribed verbatim and thematically analysed. SETTING: Data were obtained as part of an evaluation of two Irish national projects; the Irish COVID-19 Evidence for General Practitioners project (General Practice (GP) project) which provided relevant evidence to address clinical questions posed by GPs; and the COVID-19 Evidence Synthesis Team (Health Policy project) which produced rapid evidence products at the request of the National Public Health Emergency Team. PARTICIPANTS: Purposive sample of 14 evidence providers (EPs: generated and disseminated rapid evidence) and 11 service ssers (SUs: GPs and policy-makers, who used the evidence). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Participant perceptions. RESULTS: The Policy Project comprised 27 EPs, producing 30 reports across 1432 person-work-days. The GP project comprised 10 members from 3 organisations, meeting 49 times and posting evidence-based answers to 126 questions. Four unique themes were generated. 'The Work' highlighted that a structured but flexible organisational approach to producing evidence was essential. Ensuring quality of evidence products was challenging, particularly in the context of absent or poor-quality evidence. 'The Use' highlighted that rapid evidence products were considered invaluable to decision making. Trust and credibility of EPs were key, however, communication difficulties were highlighted by SUs (eg, website functionality). 'The Team' emphasised that a highly skilled team, working collaboratively, is essential to meeting the substantial workload demands and tight turnaround time. 'The Future' highlighted that investing in resources, planning and embedding evidence synthesis support, is crucial to national emergency preparedness. CONCLUSIONS: Rapid evidence products were considered invaluable to decision making. The credibility of EPs, a close relationship with SUs and having a highly skilled and adaptable team to meet the workload demands were identified as key strengths that optimised the utilisation of rapid evidence. ETHICS APPROVAL: Ethical approval was obtained from the National Research Ethics Committee for COVID-19-related Research, Ireland.

Oropharyngeal Dysphagia in Acute Cervical Spinal Cord Injury: A Literature Review.

Dysphagia (swallowing impairment) is a frequent complication of cervical spinal cord injury (cSCI). Recently published national guidance in the UK on rehabilitation after traumatic injury confirmed that people with cSCI are at risk for dysphagia and require early evaluation while remaining nil by mouth [National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Rehabilitation after traumatic injury (NG211), 2022, https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ng21 ]. While the pathogenesis and pathophysiology of dysphagia in cSCI remains unclear, numerous risk factors have been identified in the literature. This review aims to summarize the literature on the risk factors, presentation, assessment, and management of dysphagia in patients with cSCI. A bespoke approach to dysphagia management, that accounts for the multiple system impairment in cSCI, is presented; the overarching aim of which is to support effective management of dysphagia in patients with cSCI to prevent adverse clinical consequences.

Effective maNagement of depression among patients witH cANCEr (ENHANCE): a protocol for a hybrid systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials of interventions for depressive symptoms.

BACKGROUND: Depression is common among patients with cancer and is associated with lower treatment participation, lower satisfaction with care, poorer quality of life, greater symptom burden and higher healthcare costs. Various types of interventions (e.g. pharmacological, psychotherapy) are used for the treatment of depression. However, evidence for these among patients with cancer is limited. Furthermore, the relative effectiveness and acceptability of different approaches are unknown because a direct comparison between all available treatments has not been carried out. We will address this by conducting a network meta-analysis (NMA) of interventions for depression among people with cancer using a hybrid overview of reviews and systematic review methodology. METHODS: We will search for and extract data from systematic reviews of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of depression interventions for patients with cancer from inception, before performing a supplemental search for more recent RCTs. We will include RCTs comparing pharmacological, psychotherapy, exercise, combination therapy, collaborative care or complementary and alternative medicine interventions with pill placebo, no treatment, waitlist, treatment as usual or minimal treatment control groups, or directly in head-to-head trials, among adults who currently have cancer or have a history of any cancer and elevated depressive symptoms (scores above a cut-off on validated scales or meeting diagnostic criteria). Our primary outcomes will be change in depressive symptoms (standardised mean difference) and intervention acceptability (% who withdrew). Our secondary outcomes will be 6-month change in depressive symptoms, health-related quality of life, adverse events and mortality. We will independently screen for eligibility, extract data and assess risk of bias using the RoB 2 tool. We will use frequentist random-effects multivariate NMA in Stata, rankograms and surface under the cumulative ranking curves to synthesise evidence and obtain a ranking of intervention groups. We will explore heterogeneity and inconsistency using local and global measures and evaluate the credibility of results using the Confidence in NEtwork Meta-Analysis (CINeMA) framework. DISCUSSION: Our findings will provide the best available evidence for managing depression among patients with cancer. Such information will help to inform clinical guidelines, evidence-based treatment decisions and future research by identifying gaps in the current literature. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: Submitted to PROSPERO (record number: 290145), awaiting registration.