What do clinical practice guidelines say about deprescribing? A scoping review.

INTRODUCTION: Deprescribing (medication dose reduction or cessation) is an integral component of appropriate prescribing. The extent to which deprescribing recommendations are included in clinical practice guidelines is unclear. This scoping review aimed to identify guidelines that contain deprescribing recommendations, qualitatively explore the content and format of deprescribing recommendations and estimate the proportion of guidelines that contain deprescribing recommendations. METHODS: Bibliographic databases and Google were searched for guidelines published in English from January 2012 to November 2022. Guideline registries were searched from January 2017 to February 2023. Two reviewers independently screened records from databases and Google for guidelines containing one or more deprescribing recommendations. A 10% sample of the guideline registries was screened to identify eligible guidelines and estimate the proportion of guidelines containing a deprescribing recommendation. Guideline and recommendation characteristics were extracted and language features of deprescribing recommendations including content, form, complexity and readability were examined using a conventional content analysis and the SHeLL Health Literacy Editor tool. RESULTS: 80 guidelines containing 316 deprescribing recommendations were included. Deprescribing recommendations had substantial variability in their format and terminology. Most guidelines contained recommendations regarding for who (75%, n=60), what (99%, n=89) and when or why (91%, n=73) to deprescribe, however, fewer guidelines (58%, n=46) contained detailed guidance on how to deprescribe. Approximately 29% of guidelines identified from the registries sample (n=14/49) contained one or more deprescribing recommendations. CONCLUSIONS: Deprescribing recommendations are increasingly being incorporated into guidelines, however, many guidelines do not contain clear and actionable recommendations on how to deprescribe which may limit effective implementation in clinical practice. A co-designed template or best practice guide, containing information on aspects of deprescribing recommendations that are essential or preferred by end-users should be developed and employed. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: osf.io/fbex4.

Survey content validation evaluating the dissemination and implementation of deprescribing guidelines.

BACKGROUND: Policies, protocols and processes within organisations can facilitate or hinder guideline adoption. There is limited knowledge on the strategies used by organisations to disseminate and implement evidence-based deprescribing guidelines or their impact. METHODS: We aimed to develop an online survey targeting key organisations involved in deprescribing guideline endorsement, dissemination, modification or translation internationally. Survey questions were drafted, mirroring the six components of the reach, effectiveness, adoption, implementation and maintenance (RE-AIM) framework. Content validation was undertaken and established by a panel of clinicians, researchers and implementation experts. RESULTS: A 52-item survey underwent two rounds of content validation. The minimum threshold (I-CVI > 0.78) for relevance and importance was met for 39 items (75%) in the first round and 44 of 48 items (92%) in the second round. The expert panel concluded that the adoption, implementation and effectiveness survey sections were largely relevant and important to this topic, whereas the reach and maintenance sections were harder to understand and may be less pertinent to the research question. CONCLUSIONS: A 44-item survey investigating dissemination and implementation strategies for deprescribing guidelines has been developed and its content validated. Widespread survey distribution may identify effective strategies and inform dissemination and implementation planning for newly developed guidelines.

Patient and provider perspectives on the development and resolution of prescribing cascades: a qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: Prescribing cascades occur when the side effect of a medication is treated with a second medication. The aim of the study was to understand how prescribing cascades develop and persist and to identify strategies for their identification, prevention and management. METHOD: This qualitative study employed semi-structured interviews to explore the existence of prescribing cascades and to gather patients', caregivers' and clinicians' perspectives about how prescribing cascades start, persist and how they might be resolved. Participants were older adults (over age 65) at an outpatient Geriatric Day Hospital (GDH) with possible prescribing cascades (identified by a GDH team member), their caregivers, and healthcare providers. Data were analyzed using an inductive content analysis approach. RESULTS: Fourteen participants were interviewed (eight patients, one family caregiver, one GDH pharmacist, three GDH physicians and one family physician) providing a total of 22 interviews about patient-specific cases. The complexity and contextually situated nature of prescribing cascades created challenges for all of those involved with their identification. Three themes impacted how prescribing cascades developed and persisted: varying awareness of medications and cascades; varying feelings of accountability for making decisions about medication-related care; and accessibility to an ideal environment and relevant information. Actions to prevent, identify or resolve cascades were suggested. CONCLUSION: Patients and healthcare providers struggled to recognize prescribing cascades and identify when they had occurred; knowledge gaps contributed to this challenge and led to inaction. Strategies that equip patients and clinicians with resources to recognize prescribing cascades and environmental and social supports that would help with their identification are needed. Current conceptualizations of cascades warrant additional refinement by considering the nuances our work raises regarding their appropriateness and directionality.