Potentially inappropriate prescribing for people with dementia in ambulatory care: a cross-sectional observational study.

BACKGROUND: Studies have shown that potentially inappropriate prescribing (PIP) is highly prevalent among people with dementia (PwD) and linked to negative outcomes, such as hospitalisation and mortality. However, there are limited data on prescribing appropriateness for PwD in Saudi Arabia. Therefore, we aimed to estimate the prevalence of PIP and investigate associations between PIP and other patient characteristics among PwD in an ambulatory care setting. METHODS: A cross-sectional, retrospective analysis was conducted at a tertiary hospital in Saudi Arabia. Patients who were ≥ 65 years old, had dementia, and visited ambulatory care clinics between 01/01/2019 and 31/12/2021 were included. Prescribing appropriateness was evaluated by applying the Screening Tool of Older Persons Potentially Inappropriate Prescriptions (STOPP) criteria. Descriptive analyses were used to describe the study population. Prevalence of PIP and the prevalence per each STOPP criterion were calculated as a percentage of all eligible patients. Logistic regression analysis was used to investigate associations between PIP, polypharmacy, age and sex; odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated. Analyses were conducted using SPSS v27. RESULTS: A total of 287 PwD were identified; 56.0% (n = 161) were female. The mean number of medications prescribed was 9.0 [standard deviation (SD) ± 4.2]. The prevalence of PIP was 61.0% (n = 175). Common instances of PIP were drugs prescribed beyond the recommended duration (n = 90, 31.4%), drugs prescribed without an evidence-based clinical indication (n = 78, 27.2%), proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) for > 8 weeks (n = 75, 26.0%), and acetylcholinesterase inhibitors with concurrent drugs that reduce heart rate (n = 60, 21.0%). Polypharmacy was observed in 82.6% (n = 237) of patients and was strongly associated with PIP (adjusted OR 24.1, 95% CI 9.0-64.5). CONCLUSIONS: Findings have revealed a high prevalence of PIP among PwD in Saudi Arabia that is strongly associated with polypharmacy. Future research should aim to explore key stakeholders' experiences and perspectives of medicines management to optimise medication use for this vulnerable patient population.

Oral prednisolone and warfarin and risk of oesophageal cancer: A case-control study.

BACKGROUND: A recent epidemiological study systematically screened 250 prescription medications for associations with oesophageal cancer risk, using Scottish data, and identified an increased risk with use of prednisolone and warfarin. We investigated whether oral prednisolone or warfarin use was associated with increased oesophageal cancer risk. METHODS: A case-control study was conducted within the Clinical Practice Research Datalink. In the primary analysis oesophageal cancer cases were identified from linked cancer registry records. Up to 5 cancer-free controls were matched to each case (based upon sex, birth year, GP practice and year of GP registration). Prednisolone and warfarin medications were identified from prescribing records. Odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated using conditional logistic regression after adjusting for covariates including demographics, comorbidities and medication use. RESULTS: There were 4552 oesophageal cancer cases and 22,601 matched control participants. Overall, there was no evidence of an increased risk of oesophageal cancer with oral prednisolone use (unadjusted OR=1.16 95% CI 1.06, 1.27 and adjusted OR=0.99 95% CI 0.89, 1.11) or warfarin use (unadjusted OR=1.12 95% CI 0.99, 1.28 and adjusted OR=1.08 95% CI 0.92, 1.27). CONCLUSIONS: In this large population-based study, oral prednisolone and warfarin were not associated with oesophageal cancer risk.

GPs' and pharmacists' views of integrating pharmacists into general practices: a qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: Practice-based pharmacists (PBPs) have been introduced into general practice across the UK to relieve some of the pressures within primary care. However, there is little existing UK literature that has explored healthcare professionals' (HCPs') views about PBP integration and how this role has evolved. AIM: To explore the views and experiences of GPs, PBPs, and community pharmacists (CPs) about PBPs' integration into general practice and their impact on primary healthcare delivery. DESIGN AND SETTING: A qualitative interview study in primary care in Northern Ireland. METHOD: Purposive and snowball sampling were used to recruit triads (a GP, a PBP, and a CP) from across five administrative healthcare areas in Northern Ireland. Sampling of practices to recruit GPs and PBPs commenced in August 2020. These HCPs identified the CPs who had most contact with the general practices in which the recruited GPs and PBPs were working. Semi-structured interviews were recorded, transcribed verbatim, and analysed using thematic analysis. RESULTS: Eleven triads were recruited from across the five administrative areas. Four main themes in relation to PBPs' integration into general practices were revealed: evolution of the role; PBP attributes; collaboration and communication; and impact on care. Areas for development were identified such as patient awareness of the PBP role. Many saw PBPs as a 'central hub-middleman' between general practice and community pharmacies. CONCLUSION: Participants reported that PBPs had integrated well and perceived a positive impact on primary healthcare delivery. Further work is needed to increase patient awareness of the PBP role.

Exposure to weak opioids and risk of gastrointestinal tract cancers: A series of nested case-control studies.

AIMS: There is evidence gastrointestinal (GI) motility may play a role in the development of GI cancers. Weak opioids (codeine and dihydrocodeine) decrease GI motility, but their effect on GI cancer risk has not been assessed. We aim to assess the association between weak opioids and cancers of the GI tract. METHODS: A series of nested case-control studies was conducted using Scottish general practice records from the Primary Care Clinical Informatics Unit Research database. Oesophageal (n = 2432), gastric (n = 1443) and colorectal cancer (n = 8750) cases, diagnosed between 1999 and 2011, were identified and matched with up to five controls. Weak opioid use was identified from prescribing records. Odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated using conditional logistic regression, adjusting for relevant comorbidities and medication use. RESULTS: There was no association between weak opioids and colorectal cancer (adjusted OR = 0.96, CI 0.90, 1.02, P = 0.15). There was an increased risk of oesophageal (adjusted OR = 1.16, CI 1.04, 1.29, P = 0.01) and gastric cancer (adjusted OR = 1.26, CI 1.10, 1.45, P = 0.001). The associations for oesophageal cancer, but not gastric cancer, were attenuated when weak opioid users were compared with users of another analgesic (adjusted OR = 1.03 CI 0.86, 1.22, P = 0.76 and adjusted OR = 1.29 CI 1.02, 1.64, P = 0.04 respectively). CONCLUSIONS: In this large population-based study, there was no consistent evidence of an association between weak opioids and oesophageal or colorectal cancer risk, but a small increased risk of gastric cancer. Further investigation is required to determine whether this association is causal or reflects residual confounding or confounding by indication.

Trends and correlates of concurrent opioid and benzodiazepine and/or gabapentinoid use among Ontario nursing home residents.

BACKGROUND: A concern with long-term opioid use is the increased risk arising when opioids are used concurrently with drugs that can potentiate their associated adverse effects. The drugs most often encountered are benzodiazepines (BZDs) and gabapentinoids. Our study objectives were to examine trends in the concurrent use of opioids and BZDs, or gabapentinoids, in a Canadian nursing home population over an 11-year period, and current resident-level correlates of this concurrent use. METHODS: We conducted a population-based, repeated cross-sectional study among Ontario nursing home residents (>65 years) dispensed opioids between April 2009 and February 2020. For the last study year, we examined cross-sectional associations between resident characteristics and concurrent use of opioids with BZDs or gabapentinoids. Linked data on nursing home residents from clinical and health administrative databases was used. The yearly proportions of residents who were dispensed an opioid concurrently with a BZD or gabapentinoid were plotted with percent change derived from log-binomial regression models. Separate modified Poisson regression models estimated resident-level correlates of concurrent use of opioids with BZDs or gabapentinoids. RESULTS: Over the study period, among residents dispensed an opioid there was a 53.2% relative decrease (30.7% to 14.4%) in concurrent BZD and a 505.4% relative increase (4.4% to 26.6%) in concurrent gabapentinoid use. In adjusted models, increasing age and worsening cognition were inversely associated with the concurrent use of both classes, but most other significantly related covariates were unique to each drug class (e.g., sex and anxiety disorders for BZD, pain severity and presence of pain-related conditions for gabapentinoids). CONCLUSIONS: Co-administration of BZDs or gabapentinoids in Ontario nursing home residents dispensed opioids remains common, but the pattern of co-use has changed over time. Observed covariates of concurrent use in 2019/20 suggest distinct but overlapping resident populations requiring consideration of the relative risks versus benefits of this co-use and monitoring for potential harm.

Development of a core set of clinical skills for pharmacist prescribers working in general practice: A Delphi study.

BACKGROUND: With increasing numbers of pharmacists working in general practices and undertaking patient-facing roles, it has been recognised that they must have the necessary clinical skills. However, previous studies have highlighted that practice-based pharmacists (PBPs) do not feel confident regarding their clinical skills, and it is unclear what skills are needed. OBJECTIVE: To develop a core set of clinical skills (CSs) required for pharmacists who intend to practise as independent prescribers working in general practice/family medicine. METHODS: Based on a previous study, 18 CSs were selected for inclusion in a three-round Delphi consensus questionnaire. These skills were rated by a Delphi panel on a 9-point Likert scale (ranging from 1 = limited importance to 9 = critical). The Delphi panel comprised designated leads of pharmacist independent prescribing programmes in each United Kingdom educational provider listed on the General Pharmaceutical Council website. A CS was included in the core set if 80% or more of participants scored between 7 and 9, and 15% or less scored between 1 and 3. RESULTS: Following Round 1, seven CSs met the criteria for inclusion: 'Measuring heart rate (radial pulse)', 'Assessing respiratory rate', 'Measuring blood pressure (manual, e.g. with aneroid sphygmomanometer)', 'Measuring blood pressure (automated, i.e. electronic blood pressure monitor)', 'Measuring peripheral oxygen saturation (using pulse oximeter)', 'Measuring temperature', 'Measuring Peak Expiratory Flow Rate'. After two further rounds, a further four CSs were included consisting of 'Undertaking a urinalysis', 'Respiratory examination (includes inspection, palpation, percussion and listening to breath sounds)', 'Screening for/assessment of depression and anxiety using a validated questionnaire (e.g. Patient Health Questionnaire-9 [PHQ-9] scoring)', and 'Patient assessment via National Early Warning Score (NEWS)'. No consensus was reached on nine CSs. CONCLUSION: This study has produced a core set of CSs for prescribing pharmacists. This study may contribute to standardisation of training and assessment for pharmacist prescribers working in general practice/family medicine.

Enhancing deprescribing: A qualitative understanding of the complexities of pharmacist-led deprescribing in care homes.

The English National Overprescribing Review identified that older people often take eight or more medicines a day. The report recommended pharmacists in primary care should take responsibility for addressing polypharmacy. Overprescribing is a safety concern in care homes as approximately half of older care home residents are prescribed at least one medicine that is unnecessary or now harmful. This predisposes them to adverse outcomes including hospitalisation and mortality. Deprescribing is the planned activity of stopping or reducing a medicine that may no longer be appropriate. Deprescribing, when performed by a pharmacist, is a multidisciplinary activity requiring close communication with general practitioners (GPs) and care home staff. A recently completed trial that integrated pharmacists with prescribing rights into older peoples' care homes found significant variation in proactive deprescribing activity. The aim of the current study was to specifically explore beliefs and practices of deprescribing in care homes. A qualitative approach was adopted to examine individual, social and contextual factors that acted as enablers and barriers to pharmacist deprescribing in care homes. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with participants of the previous study (16 pharmacists, 6 GPs and 7 care home staff from Northern Ireland, Scotland and England). Using thematic analysis, we identified two themes: (a) Structures and systems affecting deprescribing, that is the context in which deprescribing happened, including team involvement and routine practices in GP surgeries and care homes; (b) Balancing risks when deprescribing, that is the perception of individual risk and social barriers were mitigated by understanding the medical background of residents. This supported the clinical understanding that risks from overprescribing were greater than risks from deprescribing. While deprescribing can involve all health professionals in the primary care team, these results suggest the pharmacist is well placed to lead the process; by having both clinical competence and professional willingness to drive this activity forward.

'It stayed there, front and centre': perspectives on community pharmacy's contribution to front-line healthcare services during the COVID-19 pandemic in Northern Ireland.

OBJECTIVES: To explore community pharmacists and key stakeholders' perspectives and reflections on the community pharmacy workforce's preparedness for, and response to, COVID-19, including lessons for future public health crises. DESIGN, SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: Qualitative study using semistructured interviews (via telephone or online videoconferencing platform), with community pharmacists and a range of key stakeholders (representing other health professions, professional/governing organisations concerned with community pharmacy and patient advocacy groups) from across Northern Ireland. Data were analysed using thematic analysis and constant comparison. RESULTS: Thirty interviews were conducted with community pharmacists (n=15) and key stakeholders (n=15). Four themes were identified: (1) adaptation and adjustment (reflecting how community responded quickly to the need to maintain services and adjusted and adapted services accordingly); (2) the primary point of contact (the continuing accessibility of community pharmacy when other services were not available and role as a communication hub, particularly in relation to information for patients and maintaining contact with other healthcare professionals); (3) lessons learnt (the flexibility of community pharmacy, the lack of infrastructure, especially in relation to information technology, and the need to build on the pandemic experience to develop practice); and (4) planning for the future (better infrastructure which reinforced concerns about poor technology, coordination of primary care services and preparing for the next public health crisis). There was a general view that community pharmacy needed to build on what had been learnt to advance the role of the profession. CONCLUSIONS: The strengths of community pharmacy and its contribution to healthcare services in the COVID-19 pandemic were noted by community pharmacists and acknowledged by key stakeholders. The findings from this study should inform the policy debate on community pharmacy and its contribution to the public health agenda.

An external pilot cluster randomised controlled trial of a theory-based intervention to improve appropriate polypharmacy in older people in primary care (PolyPrime).

BACKGROUND: For older populations with multimorbidity, polypharmacy (use of multiple medications) is a standard practice. PolyPrime is a theory-based intervention developed to improve appropriate polypharmacy in older people in primary care. This pilot study aims to assess the feasibility of the PolyPrime intervention in primary care in Northern Ireland (NI) and the Republic of Ireland (ROI). METHODS: This external pilot cluster randomised controlled trial (cRCT) aimed to recruit 12 general practitioner (GP) practices (six in NI; six in the ROI counties that border NI) and ten older patients receiving polypharmacy (≥ 4 medications) per GP practice (n = 120). Practices allocated to the intervention arm watched an online video and scheduled medication reviews with patients on two occasions. We assessed the feasibility of collecting GP record (medication appropriateness, health service use) and patient self-reported data [health-related quality of life (HRQoL), health service use)] at baseline, 6 and 9 months. HRQoL was measured using the EuroQol-5 dimension-5 level questionnaire (EQ-5D-5L) and medication-related burden quality-of-life (MRB-QoL) tool. An embedded process evaluation and health economics analysis were also undertaken. Pre-specified progression criteria were used to determine whether to proceed to a definitive cRCT. RESULTS: Twelve GP practices were recruited and randomised. Three GP practices withdrew from the study due to COVID-related factors. Sixty-eight patients were recruited, with 47 (69.1%) being retained until the end of the study. GP record data were available for 47 patients for medication appropriateness analysis at 9 months. EQ-5D-5L and MRB-QoL data were available for 46 and 41 patients, respectively, at 9 months. GP record and patient self-reported health service use data were available for 47 patients at 9 months. Health service use was comparable in terms of overall cost estimated from GP record versus patient self-reported data. The intervention was successfully delivered as intended; it was acceptable to GPs, practice staff, and patients; and potential mechanisms of action have been identified. All five progression criteria were met (two 'Go', three 'Amend'). CONCLUSION: Despite challenges faced during the COVID-19 pandemic, this study has demonstrated that it may be feasible to conduct an intervention to improve appropriate polypharmacy in older people in primary care across two healthcare jurisdictions. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN, ISRCTN41009897 . Registered 19 November 2019. CLINICALTRIALS: gov, NCT04181879 . Registered 02 December 2019.

A systematic review of interventions to reduce anticholinergic burden in older people with dementia in primary care.

OBJECTIVE: This systematic review aimed to assess the types and effectiveness of interventions that sought to reduce anticholinergic burden (ACB) in people with dementia (PwD) in primary care. METHODS: One trial registry and eight electronic databases were systematically searched to identify eligible English language studies from inception until December 2021. To be eligible for inclusion, studies had to be randomised controlled trials (RCTs) or non-randomised studies (NRS), including controlled before-and-after studies and interrupted time-series studies, of interventions to reduce ACB in PwD aged ≥65 years (either community-dwelling or care home residents). All outcomes were to be considered. Quality was to be assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool for RCTs and ROBINS-I tool for NRS. If data could not be pooled for meta-analysis, a narrative synthesis was to be conducted. RESULTS: In total, 1880 records were found, with 1594 records remaining after removal of duplicates. Following title/abstract screening, 13 full-text articles were assessed for eligibility. None of these studies met the inclusion criteria for this review. Reasons for exclusion were incorrect study design, ineligible study population, lack of focus on reducing ACB, and studies conducted outside the primary care setting. CONCLUSIONS: This 'empty' systematic review highlights the lack of interventions to reduce ACB in PwD within primary care, despite this being highlighted as a priority area for research in recent clinical guidance. Future research should focus on development and testing of interventions to reduce ACB in this patient population through high-quality clinical trials.

Interventions to improve medicines optimisation in older people with frailty in primary care: a systematic review.

OBJECTIVES: To identify studies that delivered an intervention to frail older people to improve medicines optimisation; identify the outcomes reported in these studies; and assess the effectiveness of these interventions on chosen study outcomes. METHOD: Eight electronic databases and four trial registries were systematically searched from the date of inception to April 2020. Inclusion criteria were randomised controlled trials and non-randomised studies of interventions to improve medicines optimisation (including administration, adherence, deprescribing, prescribing and/or medication review) in community-dwelling older people (aged ≥65 years) with a frailty diagnosis. Only studies published in English were included. A narrative synthesis was conducted, and quality was assessed using an appropriate risk of bias tool. KEY FINDINGS: Searches identified 601 articles; one study met the criteria for inclusion. The single eligible study used a quasi-experimental pre-test-post-test study design to evaluate the impact of a pharmacist-led, team-based medication review for 54 frail older patients living in primary care. Improvements in the total number of medications and prescribing appropriateness were observed. The study was judged to be at an overall serious risk of bias. CONCLUSION: There is a dearth of high-quality evidence demonstrating the effectiveness of medicines optimisation interventions for older people with frailty within primary care. Due to the strong association between patients' level of frailty and adverse outcomes, it is important that future research focuses on proactive interventions which may be beneficial to this patient population.

Antimicrobial resistance in urinary pathogens and culture-independent detection of trimethoprim resistance in urine from patients with urinary tract infection.

BACKGROUND: Although urinary tract infections (UTIs) are extremely common, isolation of causative uropathogens is not always routinely performed, with antibiotics frequently prescribed empirically. This study determined the susceptibility of urinary isolates from two Health and Social Care Trusts (HSCTs) in Northern Ireland to a range of antibiotics commonly used in the treatment of UTIs. Furthermore, we determined if detection of trimethoprim resistance genes (dfrA) could be used as a potential biomarker for rapid detection of phenotypic trimethoprim resistance in urinary pathogens and from urine without culture. METHODS: Susceptibility of E. coli and Klebsiella spp. isolates (n = 124) to trimethoprim, amoxicillin, ceftazidime, ciprofloxacin, co-amoxiclav and nitrofurantoin in addition to susceptibility of Proteus mirabilis (n = 61) and Staphylococcus saprophyticus (n = 17) to trimethoprim was determined by ETEST® and interpreted according to EUCAST breakpoints. PCR was used to detect dfrA genes in bacterial isolates (n = 202) and urine samples(n = 94). RESULTS: Resistance to trimethoprim was observed in 37/124 (29.8%) E. coli and Klebsiella spp. isolates with an MIC90 > 32 mg/L. DfrA genes were detected in 29/37 (78.4%) trimethoprim-resistant isolates. Detection of dfrA was highly sensitive (93.6%) and specific (91.4%) in predicting phenotypic trimethoprim resistance among E. coli and Klebsiella spp. isolates. The dfrA genes analysed were detected using a culture-independent PCR method in 16/94 (17%) urine samples. Phenotypic trimethoprim resistance was apparent in isolates cultured from 15/16 (94%) dfrA-positive urine samples. There was a significant association (P < 0.0001) between the presence of dfrA and trimethoprim resistance in urine samples containing Gram-negative bacteria (Sensitivity = 75%; Specificity = 96.9%; PPV = 93.8%; NPV = 86.1%). CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates that molecular detection of dfrA genes is a good indicator of trimethoprim resistance without the need for culture and susceptibility testing.

General practitioners' experiences with, views of, and attitudes towards, general practice-based pharmacists: a cross-sectional survey.

BACKGROUND: There is limited United Kingdom (UK) literature on general practice-based pharmacists' (PBPs') role evolution and few studies have explored general practitioners' (GPs') experiences on pharmacist integration into general practice. Therefore, this study aimed to investigate GPs' experiences with, views of, and attitudes towards PBPs in Northern Ireland (NI). METHODS: A paper-based self-administered questionnaire comprising four sections was mailed in 2019 to 329 general practices across NI and was completed by one GP in every practice who had most contact with the PBP. Descriptive analyses were used and responses to open-ended questions were analysed thematically. RESULTS: The response rate was 61.7% (203/329). There was at least one PBP per general practice. All GPs had face-to-face meetings with PBPs, with three-quarters (78.7%, n = 159) meeting with the PBP more than once a week. Approximately two-thirds of GPs (62.4%, n = 126) reported that PBPs were qualified as independent prescribers, and 76.2% of these (n = 96/126) indicated that prescribers were currently prescribing for patients. The majority of GPs reported that PBPs always/very often had the required clinical skills (83.6%, n = 162) and knowledge (87.0%, n = 167) to provide safe and effective care for patients. However, 31.1% (n = 61) stated that PBPs only sometimes had the confidence to make clinical decisions. The majority of GPs (> 85%) displayed largely positive attitudes towards collaboration with PBPs. Most GPs agreed/strongly agreed that PBPs will have a positive impact on patient outcomes (95.0%, n = 192) and can provide a better link between general practices and community pharmacists (96.1%, n = 194). However, 24.8% of GPs (n = 50) were unclear if the PBP role moved community pharmacists to the periphery of the primary care team. An evaluation of the free-text comments indicated that GPs were in favour of more PBP sessions and full-time posts. CONCLUSION: Most GPs had positive views of, and attitudes towards, PBPs. The findings may have implications for future developments in order to extend integration of PBPs within general practice, including the enhancement of training in clinical skills and decision-making. Exploring PBPs', community pharmacists' and patients' views of this role in general practice is required to corroborate study findings.

A systematic scoping review of interventions to optimise medication prescribing and adherence in older adults with cancer.

BACKGROUND: Older adults with cancer often require multiple medications (polypharmacy) comprising cancer-specific treatments, supportive care medications (e.g. analgesics), and medications for pre-existing health conditions. Increasing numbers of medications may increase risks of potentially inappropriate prescribing and non-adherence. OBJECTIVE: To provide an overview of evaluations of interventions aimed at optimising medication prescribing and/or adherence in older adults with cancer. METHODS: A systematic scoping review was undertaken. Four databases (PubMed, EMBASE, CINAHL, PsycINFO) were searched using relevant search terms (e.g. cancer, older adults). Eligible studies evaluated interventions seeking to improve medication prescribing and/or adherence in older adults (≥65 years) with cancer using a comparative evaluation. All outcomes for studies that met inclusion criteria were included in the review. Extracted data were collated using tables and accompanying narrative descriptive summaries. The review was reported using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR) guidelines. RESULTS: Nine studies met inclusion criteria comprising five randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and four before-and-after study designs. Studies were primarily conducted in oncology clinics, ranging from single study sites to 109 oncology clinics. Sample sizes ranged between 33 and 4844 patients. Interventions most commonly involved patient education (n = 6) delivered by pharmacists or nurses. Three studies reported on prescribing-related outcomes and seven studies reported on adherence-related outcomes, using different terminology and assessment methods. Prescribing-related outcomes focused on medication appropriateness (using Beers criteria) and drug-related problems including drug interactions. Adherence-related outcomes included assessments of self-reported medication adherence and calculation of patients' medication possession ratio. CONCLUSIONS: This scoping review highlights a lack of robust evaluations of interventions aimed at optimising medication prescribing and adherence in older adults with cancer. Future research should improve rigour during intervention development, evaluation and reporting in order to generate findings that could inform future practice.

Learning From Consultations Conducted by Community Pharmacists in Northern Ireland for Nonprescription Sildenafil: A Qualitative Study Using the Theoretical Domains Framework.

INTRODUCTION: Nonprescription sildenafil was introduced to the United Kingdom in 2018 as the first pharmacy service concerning sexual function, an important but often ignored factor for quality of life. AIM: This study aimed to evaluate pharmacists' views on providing nonprescription sildenafil, their perceptions of the barriers and facilitators to provide this service and strategies to overcome potential barriers, using a theory-based approach. METHODS: Community pharmacists were purposefully sampled in Northern Ireland, followed by snowball sampling. Face-to-face interviews were conducted between October 2019 and January 2020. The semi-structured interviews used a piloted topic guide based on the 14-domain Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF). All interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed verbatim and anonymized. Transcripts were analyzed deductively in NVivo 13, utilizing the TDF domains as coding categories. Within each domain, content analysis was utilized to identify barriers and facilitators. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Barriers and facilitators within the TDF domains for pharmacists to provide nonprescription sildenafil. RESULTS: Ten pharmacists were interviewed to reach data saturation. Eight pharmacists had experience with dispensing nonprescription sildenafil. They valued nonprescription sildenafil as an additional service ("Social/professional role and identity"). Training, concise product guidelines, and private consultation areas were important facilitators ("Environmental context and resources"). The service required trusting clients ("Optimism"), with concerns about abuse and men not visiting their GP. From experience gained, pharmacists became more confident dealing with difficult situations such as patients being vague about their medical history or alcoholism or mental problems as causes for erectile disfunction (ED) ("Skills" and "Beliefs about capabilities"). Pharmacists considered lifestyle and medication causes of ED important but preferred to focus on safe supply. In general, pharmacists were satisfied with the perceived professional recognition, using their clinical knowledge or helping patients resume sexual relationships ("Beliefs about consequences"). CONCLUSION: Pharmacists welcomed nonprescription sildenafil to enhance their role as easily accessible healthcare providers for patients. Gordijn R, Teichert M, Nicolai MPJ, et al. Learning From Consultations Conducted by Community Pharmacists in Northern Ireland for Nonprescription Sildenafil: A Qualitative Study Using the Theoretical Domains Framework. Sex Med 2021;9:100440.

Process evaluation for the Care Homes Independent Pharmacist Prescriber Study (CHIPPS).

BACKGROUND: Medicines management in care homes requires significant improvement. CHIPPS was a cluster randomised controlled trial to determine the effectiveness of integrating pharmacist independent prescribers into care homes to assume central responsibility for medicines management. This paper reports the parallel mixed-methods process evaluation. METHOD: Intervention arm consisted of 25 triads: Care homes (staff and up to 24 residents), General Practitioner (GP) and Pharmacist Independent Prescriber (PIP). Data sources were pharmaceutical care plans (PCPs), pharmacist activity logs, online questionnaires and semi-structured interviews. Quantitative data were analysed descriptively. Qualitative data were analysed thematically. Results were mapped to the process evaluation objectives following the Medical Research Council framework. RESULTS: PCPs and activity logs were available from 22 PIPs. Questionnaires were returned by 16 PIPs, eight GPs, and two care home managers. Interviews were completed with 14 PIPs, eight GPs, nine care home managers, six care home staff, and one resident. All stakeholders reported some benefits from PIPs having responsibility for medicine management and identified no safety concerns. PIPs reported an increase in their knowledge and identified the value of having time to engage with care home staff and residents during reviews. The research paperwork was identified as least useful by many PIPs. PIPs conducted medication reviews on residents, recording 566 clinical interventions, many involving deprescribing; 93.8% of changes were sustained at 6 months. For 284 (50.2%) residents a medicine was stopped, and for a quarter of residents, changes involved a medicine linked to increased falls risk. Qualitative data indicated participants noted increased medication safety and improved resident quality of life. Contextual barriers to implementation were apparent in the few triads where PIP was not known previously to the GP and care home before the trial. In three triads, PIPs did not deliver the intervention. CONCLUSIONS: The intervention was generally implemented as intended, and well-received by most stakeholders. Whilst there was widespread deprescribing, contextual factors effected opportunity for PIP engagement in care homes. Implementation was most effective when communication pathways between PIP and GP had been previously well-established. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The definitive RCT was registered with the ISRCTN registry (registration number  ISRCTN 17847169 ).

An Update on Medication Use in Older Adults: a Narrative Review.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: The global phenomenon of population aging is impacting the health and care needs of society. The use of medications by older adults is acknowledged to be the most common form of medical intervention for many acute and chronic conditions and prescribing in this population continues to increase. In this narrative review, we summarise the age-related factors that should be considered when prescribing for older adults, address some of the perennial challenges related to medicine use in older people, and highlight important emerging research in this area. RECENT FINDINGS: A range of age-related factors should be considered when prescribing for older adults. However, the evidence base still lacks data pertaining to older adults due to their continued under-representation in clinical trials. Multimorbidity, polypharmacy, and inappropriate prescribing continue to remain prevalent among older adults, although recent research has been focused on the development and evaluation of complex interventions to address these challenges. SUMMARY: Further high-quality studies of interventions to improve and support medication use in older adults are needed, ensuring that older adults are well represented in such trials and consideration is given to the measurement of patient- and provider-focused outcomes.