Barriers and enablers to healthcare system uptake of direct oral anticoagulants for stroke prevention in atrial fibrillation: a qualitative interview study with healthcare professionals and policy makers in England.

OBJECTIVE: To better understand the factors influencing the uptake of direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) across different health economies in National Health Service England from the perspective of health professionals and other health economy stakeholders. DESIGN: Qualitative interview study using a critical realism perspective and informed by the Diffusion of Innovations in Service Organisations model. SETTING: Three health economies in the North of England, United Kingdom. PARTICIPANTS: Healthcare professionals involved in the management of patients requiring oral anticoagulants, stakeholders involved in the implementation of DOACs and representatives of pharmaceutical industry companies and patient support groups. INTERVENTION: Semistructured interviews (face-to-face or telephone) were conducted with 46 participants. Interviews were analysed using the Framework method. RESULTS: Identified factors having an impact on the uptake of DOACs were grouped into four themes: perceived value of the innovation, clinician practice environment, local health economy readiness for change, and the external health service context. Together, these factors influenced what therapy options were offered and prescribed to patients with atrial fibrillation. The interviews also highlighted strategies used to improve or restrict the uptake of DOACs and tensions between providing patient-centred care and managing financial implications for commissioners. CONCLUSIONS: The findings contribute to the wider literature by providing a new and in-depth understanding on the uptake of DOACs. The findings may be applicable to other new medicines used in chronic health conditions.

Barriers and facilitators to the uptake of new medicines into clinical practice: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Implementation and uptake of novel and cost-effective medicines can improve patient health outcomes and healthcare efficiency. However, the uptake of new medicines into practice faces a wide range of obstacles. Earlier reviews provided insights into determinants for new medicine uptake (such as medicine, prescriber, patient, organization, and external environment factors). However, the methodological approaches used had limitations (e.g., single author, narrative review, narrow search, no quality assessment of reviewed evidence). This systematic review aims to identify barriers and facilitators affecting the uptake of new medicines into clinical practice and identify areas for future research. METHOD: A systematic search of literature was undertaken within seven databases: Medline, EMBASE, Web of Science, CINAHL, Cochrane Library, SCOPUS, and PsychINFO. Included in the review were qualitative, quantitative, and mixed-methods studies focused on adult participants (18 years and older) requiring or taking new medicine(s) for any condition, in the context of healthcare organizations and which identified factors affecting the uptake of new medicines. The methodological quality was assessed using QATSDD tool. A narrative synthesis of reported factors was conducted using framework analysis and a conceptual framework was utilised to group them. RESULTS: A total of 66 studies were included. Most studies (n = 62) were quantitative and used secondary data (n = 46) from various databases, e.g., insurance databases. The identified factors had a varied impact on the uptake of the different studied new medicines. Differently from earlier reviews, patient factors (patient education, engagement with treatment, therapy preferences), cost of new medicine, reimbursement and formulary conditions, and guidelines were suggested to influence the uptake. Also, the review highlighted that health economics, wider organizational factors, and underlying behaviours of adopters were not or under explored. CONCLUSION: This systematic review has identified a broad range of factors affecting the uptake of new medicines within healthcare organizations, which were grouped into patient, prescriber, medicine, organizational, and external environment factors. This systematic review also identifies additional factors affecting new medicine use not reported in earlier reviews, which included patient influence and education level, cost of new medicines, formulary and reimbursement restrictions, and guidelines. REGISTRATION: PROSPERO database (CRD42018108536).

Associations Between Anticholinergic Medication Exposure and Adverse Health Outcomes in Older People with Frailty: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

INTRODUCTION: There are robust associations between use of anticholinergic medicines and adverse effects in older people. However, the nature of these associations for older people living with frailty is yet to be established. OBJECTIVES: The aims were to identify and investigate associations between anticholinergics and adverse outcomes in older people living with frailty and to investigate whether exposure is associated with greater risks according to frailty status. METHODS: MEDLINE, CINAHL, EMBASE, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Web of Science and PsycINFO were searched to 1 August 2019. Observational studies reporting associations between anticholinergics and outcomes in older adults (average age ≥ 65 years) that reported frailty using validated measures were included. Primary outcomes were physical impairment, cognitive dysfunction, and change in frailty status. Risk of bias was evaluated using the Cochrane Risk of Bias In Non-randomised Studies of Interventions (ROBINS-I) tool. Meta-analysis was undertaken where appropriate. RESULTS: Thirteen studies (21,516 participants) were included (ten community, one residential aged-care facility and two hospital studies). Observed associations included reduced ability for chair standing, slower gait speeds, poorer physical performance, increased risk of falls and mortality. Conflicting results were reported for grip strength, timed up and go test, cognition and activities of daily living. No associations were observed for transitions between frailty states, psychological wellbeing or benzodiazepine-related adverse reactions. There was no clear evidence of differences in risks according to frailty status. CONCLUSIONS: Anticholinergics are associated with adverse outcomes in older people living with frailty; however, the literature has significant methodological limitations. There is insufficient evidence to suggest greater risks based on frailty, and there is an urgent need to evaluate this further in well-designed studies stratifying by frailty.

Patient Perspectives on Factors Affecting Direct Oral Anticoagulant Use for Stroke Prevention in Atrial Fibrillation.

INTRODUCTION: Oral anticoagulant therapy choices for patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) expanded in the last decade with the introduction of direct oral anticoagulants (DOAC). However, the implementation of DOACs was slow and varied across different health economies in England. There is limited evidence on the patient role in the uptake of new medicines, including DOACs, apart from considering their demographic and clinical characteristics. Hence, this study aimed to address the gap by exploring the view of patients with AF on factors affecting DOAC use. METHODS: A qualitative study using semi-structured interviews was conducted in three health economies in the North of England. Adult patients (>18 years) diagnosed with non-valvular AF, prescribed an oral anticoagulant (vitamin K antagonist or DOAC), and able to give written consent were recruited. Data were collected between August 2018 and April 2019. Audio recorded interviews were transcribed verbatim and analyzed using the framework method. RESULTS: Four themes with eleven subthemes discussed identified factors affecting the use of DOACs. They were linked to limited healthcare financial and workforce resources, patient involvement in decision-making, patient knowledge about DOACs, safety concerns about oral anticoagulants, and oral anticoagulant therapy impact on patients' daily lives. Lack of a) opportunities to voice patient preferences and b) information on available therapy options resulted in some patients experiencing difficulties with the prescribed therapy. This was reported to cause negative impact on their daily lives, adherence, and overall satisfaction with the therapy. CONCLUSION: Greater patient involvement in decision-making could prevent and resolve difficulties encountered by some patients and potentially improve outcomes plus increase the uptake of DOACs.

An adaptable implementation package targeting evidence-based indicators in primary care: A pragmatic cluster-randomised evaluation.

BACKGROUND: In primary care, multiple priorities and system pressures make closing the gap between evidence and practice challenging. Most implementation studies focus on single conditions, limiting generalisability. We compared an adaptable implementation package against an implementation control and assessed effects on adherence to four different evidence-based quality indicators. METHODS AND FINDINGS: We undertook two parallel, pragmatic cluster-randomised trials using balanced incomplete block designs in general practices in West Yorkshire, England. We used 'opt-out' recruitment, and we randomly assigned practices that did not opt out to an implementation package targeting either diabetes control or risky prescribing (Trial 1); or blood pressure (BP) control or anticoagulation in atrial fibrillation (AF) (Trial 2). Within trials, each arm acted as the implementation control comparison for the other targeted indicator. For example, practices assigned to the diabetes control package acted as the comparison for practices assigned to the risky prescribing package. The implementation package embedded behaviour change techniques within audit and feedback, educational outreach, and computerised support, with content tailored to each indicator. Respective patient-level primary endpoints at 11 months comprised the following: achievement of all recommended levels of haemoglobin A1c (HbA1c), BP, and cholesterol; risky prescribing levels; achievement of recommended BP; and anticoagulation prescribing. Between February and March 2015, we recruited 144 general practices collectively serving over 1 million patients. We stratified computer-generated randomisation by area, list size, and pre-intervention outcome achievement. In April 2015, we randomised 80 practices to Trial 1 (40 per arm) and 64 to Trial 2 (32 per arm). Practices and trial personnel were not blind to allocation. Two practices were lost to follow-up but provided some outcome data. We analysed the intention-to-treat (ITT) population, adjusted for potential confounders at patient level (sex, age) and practice level (list size, locality, pre-intervention achievement against primary outcomes, total quality scores, and levels of patient co-morbidity), and analysed cost-effectiveness. The implementation package reduced risky prescribing (odds ratio [OR] 0.82; 97.5% confidence interval [CI] 0.67-0.99, p = 0.017) with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of £1,359 per quality-adjusted life year (QALY), but there was insufficient evidence of effect on other primary endpoints (diabetes control OR 1.03, 97.5% CI 0.89-1.18, p = 0.693; BP control OR 1.05, 97.5% CI 0.96-1.16, p = 0.215; anticoagulation prescribing OR 0.90, 97.5% CI 0.75-1.09, p = 0.214). No statistically significant effects were observed in any secondary outcome except for reduced co-prescription of aspirin and clopidogrel without gastro-protection in patients aged 65 and over (adjusted OR 0.62; 97.5% CI 0.39-0.99; p = 0.021). Main study limitations concern our inability to make any inferences about the relative effects of individual intervention components, given the multifaceted nature of the implementation package, and that the composite endpoint for diabetes control may have been too challenging to achieve. CONCLUSIONS: In this study, we observed that a multifaceted implementation package was clinically and cost-effective for targeting prescribing behaviours within the control of clinicians but not for more complex behaviours that also required patient engagement. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The study is registered with the ISRCTN registry (ISRCTN91989345).

Evaluating recruitment methods of patients with advanced cancer: a pragmatic opportunistic comparison.

BACKGROUND: Recruitment of patients with advanced cancer into studies is challenging. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate recruitment methods in a study of pharmacist-led cancer pain medicine consultations and produce recommendations for future studies. METHOD: Two methods of recruitment were employed: (1) community-based (general practitioner computer search, identification by general practitioner, community pharmacist or district nurse and hospital outpatient list search) and (2) hospice-based (in and outpatient list search). Patients identified in method 1 were invited by post and in method 2 were invited face-to-face. Information was designed in collaboration with patients and carers. RESULTS: A total of 128 patients were identified (85 from the community and 43 from the hospice), and 47 met the inclusion criteria. Twenty-three agreed to take part and 19 completed the study, 17 of whom were already under specialist palliative care. Recruitment rates were 7% for community-based methods and 40% for hospice. The recruitment methods differed in intensity of resource use. Recruitment via letter and a lack of engagement by healthcare professionals were found to be barriers. Facilitators included the researcher having personal involvement in recruitment. CONCLUSION: The overall recruitment rate was in line with other studies for this patient cohort. Attempts to identify and engage patients through community-based postal contact were less effective than where personal contact with patients was both possible and occurred. Methods were less successful at recruiting patients who were not already engaged with hospice services.

Uptake of Oral Anticoagulants for Stroke Prevention in Patients with Atrial Fibrillation in a Single Clinical Commissioning Group in England Without Restrictions to Their Use.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: In England, the uptake of direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) for stroke prevention in atrial fibrillation has been slow and varied across different Clinical Commissioning Groups (CCGs). This study aimed to profile the prescribing of oral anticoagulants for stroke prevention in patients with atrial fibrillation over 3 years in a CCG without restrictions to DOACs use to understand more about organisational and/or individual barriers to the early uptake of DOACs. METHODS: Data were collected from nine general practices between 1 April 2012 and 31 March 2015 of patients who were initiated on the oral anticoagulant therapy. Data were analysed descriptively and with independent Student's t test and Chi square test to explore if there was an association between type of oral anticoagulant initiated and sex, age, type of prescriber and prior aspirin use. RESULTS: The early uptake of DOACs significantly increased over the study period (p < 0.0001; medium size effect φc = 0.372). There was no statistically significant difference between sex or age and type of oral anticoagulant initiated. Primary-care prescribers were responsible for initiating the majority of oral anticoagulants (71%; N = 257) and driving the use of DOACs (72%, N = 71). Patients switched from aspirin to an oral anticoagulant were more likely to be initiated on warfarin than a DOAC. CONCLUSIONS: The early use of DOACs, in a CCG without restrictions to their use, was embraced by primary-care prescribers in this particular CCG.

Application of prescribing recommendations in older people with reduced kidney function: a cross-sectional study in general practice.

BACKGROUND: Kidney function reduces with age, increasing the risk of harm from increased blood levels of many medicines. Although estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) is reported for prescribing decisions in those aged ≥65 years, creatinine clearance (Cockcroft-Gault) gives a more accurate estimate of kidney function. AIM: To explore the extent of prescribing outside recommendations for people aged ≥65 years with reduced kidney function in primary care and to assess the impact of using eGFR instead of creatinine clearance to calculate kidney function. DESIGN AND SETTING: A cross-sectional survey of anonymised prescribing data in people aged ≥65 years from all 80 general practices (70 900 patients) in a north of England former primary care trust. METHOD: The prevalence of prescribing outside recommendations was analysed for eight exemplar drugs. Data were collected for age, sex, actual weight, serum creatinine, and eGFR. Kidney function as creatinine clearance (Cockcroft-Gault) was calculated using actual body weight and estimated ideal body weight. RESULTS: Kidney function was too low for recommended prescribing in 4-40% of people aged ≥65 years, and in 24-80% of people aged ≥85 years despite more than 90% of patients having recent recorded kidney function results. Using eGFR overestimated kidney function for 3-28% of those aged ≥65 years, and for 13-58% of those aged ≥85 years. Increased age predicted higher odds of having a kidney function estimate too low for recommended prescribing of the study drugs. CONCLUSION: Prescribing recommendations when kidney function is reduced are not applied for many people aged ≥65 years in primary care. Using eGFR considerably overestimates kidney function for prescribing and, therefore, creatinine clearance (Cockcroft-Gault) should be assessed when prescribing for these people. Interventions are needed to aid prescribers when kidney function is reduced.

To what extent can behaviour change techniques be identified within an adaptable implementation package for primary care? A prospective directed content analysis.

BACKGROUND: Interpreting evaluations of complex interventions can be difficult without sufficient description of key intervention content. We aimed to develop an implementation package for primary care which could be delivered using typically available resources and could be adapted to target determinants of behaviour for each of four quality indicators: diabetes control, blood pressure control, anticoagulation for atrial fibrillation and risky prescribing. We describe the development and prospective verification of behaviour change techniques (BCTs) embedded within the adaptable implementation packages. METHODS: We used an over-lapping multi-staged process. We identified evidence-based, candidate delivery mechanisms-mainly audit and feedback, educational outreach and computerised prompts and reminders. We drew upon interviews with primary care professionals using the Theoretical Domains Framework to explore likely determinants of adherence to quality indicators. We linked determinants to candidate BCTs. With input from stakeholder panels, we prioritised likely determinants and intervention content prior to piloting the implementation packages. Our content analysis assessed the extent to which embedded BCTs could be identified within the packages and compared them across the delivery mechanisms and four quality indicators. RESULTS: Each implementation package included at least 27 out of 30 potentially applicable BCTs representing 15 of 16 BCT categories. Whilst 23 BCTs were shared across all four implementation packages (e.g. BCTs relating to feedback and comparing behaviour), some BCTs were unique to certain delivery mechanisms (e.g. 'graded tasks' and 'problem solving' for educational outreach). BCTs addressing the determinants 'environmental context' and 'social and professional roles' (e.g. 'restructuring the social and 'physical environment' and 'adding objects to the environment') were indicator specific. We found it challenging to operationalise BCTs targeting 'environmental context', 'social influences' and 'social and professional roles' within our chosen delivery mechanisms. CONCLUSION: We have demonstrated a transparent process for selecting, operationalising and verifying the BCT content in implementation packages adapted to target four quality indicators in primary care. There was considerable overlap in BCTs identified across the four indicators suggesting core BCTs can be embedded and verified within delivery mechanisms commonly available to primary care. Whilst feedback reports can include a wide range of BCTs, computerised prompts can deliver BCTs at the time of decision making, and educational outreach can allow for flexibility and individual tailoring in delivery.

Opioid prescribing for patients with cancer in the last year of life: a longitudinal population cohort study.

We linked UK cancer registry data with the corresponding electronic primary care medical records of 6080 patients who died of cancer over a 7-year period in a large United Kingdom city. We extracted all prescriptions for analgesics issued to each patient in the linked cohort during the 12 months before death and analysed the extent and duration of strong opioid treatment with clinical and patient characteristics. Strong opioids were prescribed for 48% of patients in the last year of life. Median interval between first prescription of a strong opioid and death was 9 weeks (interquartile range 3-23). Strong opioid prescribing was not influenced by cancer type, duration of illness, or gender but was adversely influenced by older age. Compared with patients who died in a hospice, those who died in a hospital were 60% less likely to receive a strong opioid in primary care before admission (relative risk ratio 0.4, CI 0.3-0.5, P < 0.01). The study provides the first detailed analysis of the relatively late onset and short duration of strong opioid treatment in patients with cancer before death in a representative UK cohort. This pattern of prescribing does not match epidemiological data which point to earlier onset of pain. Although persistent undertreatment of cancer pain is well documented, this study suggests that strategies for earlier pain assessment and initiation of strong opioid treatment in community-based patients with cancer could help to improve pain outcomes.

Prescribed opioids in primary care: cross-sectional and longitudinal analyses of influence of patient and practice characteristics.

OBJECTIVES: To examine trends in opioid prescribing in primary care, identify patient and general practice characteristics associated with long-term and stronger opioid prescribing, and identify associations with changes in opioid prescribing. DESIGN: Trend, cross-sectional and longitudinal analyses of routinely recorded patient data. SETTING: 111 primary care practices in Leeds and Bradford, UK. PARTICIPANTS: We observed 471 828 patient-years in which all patients represented had at least 1 opioid prescription between April 2005 and March 2012. A cross-sectional analysis included 99 847 patients prescribed opioids between April 2011 and March 2012. A longitudinal analysis included 49 065 patient-years between April 2008 and March 2012. We excluded patients with cancer or treated for substance misuse. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Long-term opioid prescribing (4 or more prescriptions within 12 months), stronger opioid prescribing and stepping up to or down from stronger opioids. RESULTS: Opioid prescribing in the adult population almost doubled for weaker opioids over 2005-2012 and rose over sixfold for stronger opioids. There was marked variation among general practices in the odds of patients stepping up to stronger opioids compared with those not stepping up (range 0.31-3.36), unexplained by practice-level variables. Stepping up to stronger opioids was most strongly associated with being underweight (adjusted OR 3.26, 1.49 to 7.17), increasing polypharmacy (4.15, 3.26 to 5.29 for 10 or more repeat prescriptions), increasing numbers of primary care appointments (3.04, 2.48 to 3.73 for over 12 appointments in the year) and referrals to specialist pain services (5.17, 4.37 to 6.12). Compared with women under 50 years, men under 50 were less likely to step down once prescribed stronger opioids (0.53, 0.37 to 0.75). CONCLUSIONS: While clinicians should be alert to patients at risk of escalated opioid prescribing, much prescribing variation may be attributable to clinical behaviour. Effective strategies targeting clinicians and patients are needed to curb rising prescribing, especially of stronger opioids.

Understanding long-term opioid prescribing for non-cancer pain in primary care: a qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: The place of opioids in the management of chronic, non-cancer pain is limited. Even so their use is escalating, leading to concerns that patients are prescribed strong opioids inappropriately and alternatives to medication are under-used. We aimed to understand the processes which bring about and perpetuate long-term prescribing of opioids for chronic, non-cancer pain. METHODS: We held semi-structured interviews with patients and focus groups with general practitioners (GPs). Participants included 23 patients currently prescribed long-term opioids and 15 GPs from Leeds and Bradford, United Kingdom (UK). We used a grounded approach to the analysis of transcripts. RESULTS: Patients are driven by the needs for pain relief, explanation, and improvement or maintenance of quality of life. GPs' responses are shaped by how UK general practice is organised, available therapeutic choices and their expertise in managing chronic pain, especially when facing diagnostic uncertainty or when their own approach is at odds with the patient's wishes. Four features of the resulting transaction between patients and doctors influence prescribing: lack of clarity of strategy, including the risk of any plans being subverted by urgent demands; lack of certainty about locus of control in decision-making, especially in relation to prescribing; continuity in the doctor-patient relationship; and mutuality and trust. CONCLUSIONS: Problematic prescribing occurs when patients experience repeated consultations that do not meet their needs and GPs feel unable to negotiate alternative approaches to treatment. Therapeutic short-termism is perpetuated by inconsistent clinical encounters and the absence of mutually-agreed formulations of underlying problems and plans of action. Apart from commissioning improved access to appropriate specialist services, general practices should also consider how they manage problematic opioid prescribing and be prepared to set boundaries with patients.

The scale of repeat prescribing--time for an update.

BACKGROUND: The NHS spends billions of pounds annually on repeat prescriptions in primary care, but data on their extent and use is out of date. Understanding the scale of repeat prescribing and for whom it is prescribed is important for the NHS to plan services and develop policies to improve patient care. METHOD: Anonymous data on prescription numbers and practice population demographics was obtained from GP computer systems in a large urban area.Searches were conducted in November 2011 to identify the numbers of repeat items listed on individuals' repeat lists by sex and age.The proportion of all prescription items issued as repeats was identified by conducting searches on items issued as repeat and acute prescriptions. RESULTS: In the year of study 4,453,225 items were issued of which 3,444,769 (77%) were repeats (mean 13 items per patient/annum) and 1,008,456 (23%) acute prescriptions (mean 3.9 items per patient per annum). The mean number of repeat Items per patient was 1.87 (range 0.45 ages 0-9 years; 7.1 ages 80-89 years). At least one repeat medicine was prescribed to 43% of the population (range 20% for ages 0-9; over 75% for ages 60+). CONCLUSION: A significant proportion of the population receive repeat prescriptions and the proportion increases with age. Whilst the proportion of repeat items to acute items has remained unchanged over the last two decades the number of repeat prescriptions items issued has doubled (from 5.8 to 13.3 items/patient/annum). This has implications for general practice workload, patient convenience, NHS costs and risk.

The recording of drug sensitivities for older people living in care homes.

AIMS: The aims of this study were to determine the recording of drug sensitivities of elderly care home residents, to describe the nature of sensitivities and to identify and describe discrepancies in the documentation of drug sensitivity status in general practices, pharmacies and care homes. METHODS: A random sample of residents within a purposive sample of care homes (nursing and residential) was selected. A clinical pharmacist inspected the GP medical record, the medicines administration record, and the care home record for each resident to identify drug sensitivities and discrepancies between records and to describe the nature of the recorded sensitivities. RESULTS: The records of 121 residents in 31 care homes were studied. Thirty-one (26%) residents had at least one documented drug sensitivity in one of the sources inspected, with 48 sensitivities in total recorded. There was no description of the nature of the sensitivities recorded in 39/48 (81%) cases. The number of sensitivities recorded on the medicines administration record, care home record and the GP record were 3 (6%), 29 (60%) and 35 (73%), respectively. Only two sensitivities were simultaneously recorded on all three records. CONCLUSIONS: It was of concern that over 90% of drug sensitivities were not recorded on the medicines administration record which is the final checking document when administering medication. The reason for this was that the dispensing pharmacy was responsible for generating the medicines administration record; however, drug sensitivity status is seldom shared between the GP and the dispensing pharmacy. Printing sensitivities on prescriptions would help to resolve this.

Long-term prescribing of antidepressants in the older population: a qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: High rates of long-term antidepressant prescribing have been identified in the older population. AIMS: To explore the attitudes of older patients and their GPs to taking long-term antidepressant therapy, and their accounts of the influences on long-term antidepressant use. DESIGN OF STUDY: Qualitative study using in-depth semi-structured interviews. SETTING: One primary care trust in North Bradford. METHOD: Thirty-six patients aged > or =75 years and 10 GPs were interviewed. Patients were sampled to ensure diversity in age, sex, antidepressant type, and home circumstances. RESULTS: Participants perceived significant benefits and expressed little apprehension about taking long-term antidepressants, despite being aware of the psychological and social factors involved in onset and persistence of depression. Barriers to discontinuation were identified following four themes: pessimism about the course and curability of depression; negative expectations and experiences of ageing; medicine discontinuation perceived by patients as a threat to stability; and passive (therapeutic momentum) and active (therapeutic maintenance) decisions to accept the continuing need for medication. CONCLUSION: There is concern at a public health level about high rates of long-term antidepressant prescribing, but no evidence was found of a drive for change either from the patients or the doctors interviewed. Any apprehension was more than balanced by attitudes and behaviours supporting continuation. These findings will need to be incorporated into the planning of interventions aimed at reducing long-term antidepressant prescribing in older people.

Can cheap generic statins achieve national cholesterol lowering targets?

OBJECTIVES: The Department of Health in England recommend that simvastatin and pravastatin should be prescribed in at least 69% of statin prescriptions in primary care on the assumption that these drugs (and at doses prescribed) are as effective as alternatives. We aimed to identify whether primary care trusts (PCTs) that used a high proportion of simvastatin and pravastatin performed as well on the Quality and Outcome Framework (QOF) targets related to cholesterol as those PCTs that used less. METHODS: QOF data were obtained for all PCTs for 2005-2006. National prescribing data for statins was analysed for the same time period. The square of the Pearson correlation was used to assess the association between the two. RESULTS: The average PCT values for the three QOF indicators for CHD, stroke and diabetes were 78% (range 66-88%), 72% (58-82%) and 79% (67-88%), respectively. The percentage use of simvastatin and pravastatin by PCTs varied from 18-84%, with a mean of 57%. There was no evidence of any association between the use of simvastatin and pravastatin as a percentage of all statin items and success in achieving the QOF targets. CONCLUSIONS: PCTs that had a high proportion of simvastatin and pravastatin use were just as successful achieving cholesterol targets for patients with coronary heart disease, diabetes and stroke as those that used more atorvastatin, rosuvastatin or fluvastatin. This supports the policy to use the less expensive generic statins.

Clinical medication review by a pharmacist of elderly people living in care homes--randomised controlled trial.

OBJECTIVE: to measure the impact of pharmacist-conducted clinical medication review with elderly care home residents. DESIGN: randomised controlled trial of clinical medication review by a pharmacist against usual care. SETTING: sixty-five care homes for the elderly in Leeds, UK. PARTICIPANTS: a total of 661 residents aged 65+ years on one or more medicines. INTERVENTION: clinical medication review by a pharmacist with patient and clinical records. Recommendations to general practitioner for approval and implementation. Control patients received usual general practitioner care. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: primary: number of changes in medication per participant. Secondary: number and cost of repeat medicines per participant; medication review rate; mortality, falls, hospital admissions, general practitioner consultations, Barthel index, Standardised Mini-Mental State Examination (SMMSE). RESULTS: the pharmacist reviewed 315/331 (95.2%) patients in 6 months. A total of 62/330 (18.8%) control patients were reviewed by their general practitioner. The mean number of drug changes per patient were 3.1 for intervention and 2.4 for control group (P < 0.0001). There were respectively 0.8 and 1.3 falls per patient (P < 0.0001). There was no significant difference for GP consultations per patient (means 2.9 and 2.8 in 6 months, P = 0.5), hospitalisations (means 0.2 and 0.3, P = 0.11), deaths (51/331 and 48/330, P = 0.81), Barthel score (9.8 and 9.3, P = 0.06), SMMSE score (13.9 and 13.8, P = 0.62), number and cost of drugs per patient (6.7 and 6.9, P = 0.5) (pounds sterling 42.24 and pounds sterling 42.94 per 28 days). A total of 75.6% (565/747) of pharmacist recommendations were accepted by the general practitioner; and 76.6% (433/565) of accepted recommendations were implemented. CONCLUSIONS: general practitioners do not review most care home patients' medication. A clinical pharmacist can review them and make recommendations that are usually accepted. This leads to substantial change in patients' medication regimens without change in drug costs. There is a reduction in the number of falls. There is no significant change in consultations, hospitalisation, mortality, SMMSE or Barthel scores.