Cough in Children and Adults: Diagnosis, Assessment and Management (CICADA). Summary of an updated position statement on chronic cough in Australia.

INTRODUCTION: Cough is the most common symptom leading to medical consultation. Chronic cough results in significant health care costs, impairs quality of life, and may indicate the presence of a serious underlying condition. Here, we present a summary of an updated position statement on cough management in the clinical consultation. MAIN RECOMMENDATIONS: Assessment of children and adults requires a focused history of chronic cough to identify any red flag cough pointers that may indicate an underlying disease. Further assessment with examination should include a chest x-ray and spirometry (when age > 6 years). Separate paediatric and adult diagnostic management algorithms should be followed. Management of the underlying condition(s) should follow specific disease guidelines, as well as address adverse environmental exposures and patient/carer concerns. First Nations adults and children should be considered a high risk group. The full statement from the Thoracic Society of Australia and New Zealand and Lung Foundation Australia for managing chronic cough is available at https://lungfoundation.com.au/resources/cicada-full-position-statement. CHANGES IN MANAGEMENT AS A RESULT OF THIS STATEMENT: Algorithms for assessment and diagnosis of adult and paediatric chronic cough are recommended. High quality evidence supports the use of child-specific chronic cough management algorithms to improve clinical outcomes, but none exist in adults. Red flags that indicate serious underlying conditions requiring investigation or referral should be identified. Early and effective treatment of chronic wet/productive cough in children is critical. Culturally specific strategies for facilitating the management of chronic cough in First Nations populations should be adopted. If the chronic cough does not resolve or is unexplained, the patient should be referred to a respiratory specialist or cough clinic.

Supporting conversations about medicines and deprescribing: GPs' perspectives on a Medicines Conversation Guide.

OBJECTIVES: To explore GP perspectives on a Medicines Conversation Guide to support deprescribing communication. METHODS: Semistructured interviews with GPs from Australia (n = 32). Participants were purposively sampled with varying experiences and locations. Transcribed audio recordings of interviews were coded using framework analysis. KEY FINDINGS: Most GPs stated they would use the Guide in consultation with an older patient to discuss medications. The strengths of the Guide included empowering the patient voice on an important topic. Limitations included time and complex concepts. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, the Medicines Conversation Guide was perceived by GPs to be a useful communication tool to support discussions about deprescribing with patients.

Auditing the scope of antithrombotic care in iPACT (International Pharmacists for Anticoagulation Care Taskforce) represented countries.

Countries strive to find suitable solutions to offer health services to their populations. Pharmacist-led services are a possible solution to supplement the care offer with a clear advantage of proximity, with demonstrated expertise in medication use. This paper aims to audit the scope of antithrombotic care services available; and to describe the arrangements adopted for meeting the needs of the population. A multi-stage project involved the development of the list of services, generated during a face-to-face expert meeting; the definition of each service by literature search; and their clustering into three main groups (general, specific and support); resulting in an online audit of each service's availability, the settings where the service was available and the possible providers. The audit was distributed to a taskforce devoted to antithrombotic care representing 22 countries, with response obtained for all. Most reported general services were Transfer of care and Comprehensive Medication Review. Among specific services, Point-of-care testing for INR and renal function and Patient Education on antithrombotic care (antiplatelets and anticoagulants) were the most frequent. Interprofessional Education as a support service was very common, but the use of the Choosing Wisely initiative to inform evidence-based decisions was still limited. There was wide diversity found in arrangements for the provision of services to support patients taking antithrombotic medication, albeit specific services were reported in over half the surveyed countries.

The role of older patients' goals in GP decision-making about medicines: a qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: To optimise medication use in older people, it is recommended that clinicians evaluate evidence on potential benefits and harms of medicines in light of the patients' overall health, values and goals. This suggests general practitioners (GPs) should attempt to facilitate patient involvement in decision-making. In practice this is often challenging. In this qualitative study, we explored GPs' perspectives on the importance of discussing patients' goals and preferences, and the role patient preferences play in medicines management and prioritisation. METHODS: Semi-structured interviews were conducted with GPs from Australia (n = 32). Participants were purposively sampled to recruit GPs with variation in experience level and geographic location. Transcribed audio-recordings of interviews were coded using Framework Analysis. RESULTS: The results showed that most GPs recognised some value in understanding older patients' goals and preferences regarding their medicines. Most reported some discussions of goals and preferences with patients, but often this was initiated by the patient. Practical barriers were reported such as limited time during busy consultations to discuss issues beyond acute problems. GPs differed on the following main themes: 1) definition and perception of patients' goals, 2) relationship with the patient, 3) approach to medicines management and prioritisation. We observed that GPs preferred one of three different practice patterns in their approach to patients' goals in medicines decisions: 1) goals and preferences considered lower priority - 'Directive'; 2) goals seen as central - 'Goal-oriented'; 3) goals and preferences considered but not explicitly elicited - 'Tacit'. CONCLUSIONS: This study explores how GPs differ in their approach to eliciting patients' goals and preferences, and how these differences are operationalised in the context of older adults taking multiple medicines. Although there are challenges in providing care that aligns with patients' goals and preferences, this study shows how complex decisions are made between GPs and their older patients in clinical practice. This work may inform future research that investigates how GPs can best incorporate the priorities of older people in decision-making around medicines. Developing practical support strategies may assist clinicians to involve patients in discussions about their medicines.

High-Risk Medication Use in Older Residents of Long-Term Care Facilities: Prevalence, Harms, and Strategies to Mitigate Risks and Enhance Use.

Older residents of long-term care facilities (LTCFs), also known as nursing homes, care homes, or residential aged care facilities, often have multiple health conditions and are exposed to polypharmacy. Use of high-risk medications such as opioids, glucose-lowering medications, antithrombotics, and antipsychotics is prevalent among residents of LTCFs. Ensuring appropriate use of high-risk medications is important to minimize the risk of medication-related harm in this vulnerable population. This paper provides an overview of the prevalence and factors associated with high-risk medication use among residents of LTCFs. Evidencebased strategies to optimize the use of high-risk medications and enhance resident outcomes are also discussed.

Home medicines reviews: a qualitative study of GPs.

This qualitative study explored GPs' experiences with pharmacist-led home medicines reviews (HMRs) and the barriers and facilitators to GPs using HMRs to optimise medicines for older people. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 32 GPs Australia-wide. Purposeful sampling was undertaken to obtain a representative group in terms of age, gender and location. Data were analysed using framework analysis. Overall, GPs found HMRs useful for educating patients about their medicines, improving adherence and understanding the patient's home environment. Barriers to effective use of HMRs included patient resistance to having medicines reviewed and limited access to HMRs in regional or rural areas. GPs differed in the extent and way they use HMRs. One group found HMRs very useful, wanted more access to HMRs and reported frequent interactions with pharmacists. A second group was ambivalent, and perceived HMRs could be useful but had limitations in what they can achieve. A third group was sceptical, and reported HMRs rarely provide new insights, and recommendations were not clinically relevant to patients. Understanding GPs' expectations and preferences through interprofessional communication and partnerships are ways to address these barriers. Future improvements to the HMR program may include incentives and resources that promote collaboration between GPs and pharmacists.

Pharmacists and patients sharing decisions about medicines: Development and feasibility of a conversation guide.

BACKGROUND: In Australia, the Home Medicines Review (HMR) is a nationally-funded program, led by pharmacists to optimize medication use for older people. A Medicines Conversation Guide was developed for pharmacists to use in the context of a HMR. The Guide aims to increase patient involvement and support discussions about: general health understanding, decision-making and information preferences, health priorities related to medicines, patient goals and fears, views on important activities and trade-offs. OBJECTIVE: This study describes the development and feasibility testing of a Medicines Conversation Guide in HMRs with pharmacists and older patients. METHODS: The Guide was developed using a systematic and iterative process, followed by testing in clinical practice with 11 pharmacists, 17 patients (aged 65+) and their companions. A researcher observed HMRs, surveyed and qualitatively interviewed patients and pharmacists to discuss feasibility. Transcribed recordings of the interviews were thematically coded and a Framework Analysis method used. RESULTS: Pharmacists found the Guide to be an acceptable and useful component to the HMR, especially among patients with limited knowledge of their medicines. The Guide seemed most effective when integrated with the HMR and tailored to suit the individual patient. Some questions were difficult for patients to grasp (e.g. trade-offs) or sounded formal. Most patients found the Guide focused the HMR on their perspective and encouraged a more holistic approach to the HMR. From the quantitative survey, pharmacists found the Guide easy to implement, balanced and understandable. CONCLUSIONS: Pharmacists and patients reported the Guide fits with the HMR encounter relatively easily and promoted communication about goals and preferences in relation to medications. This study highlighted some key challenges for communication about medicines and how the Guide may help support the process of involving patients more in the HMR.

Understanding urine testing.

Urine is a natural waste product of the body and urine testing is a simple and quick way of monitoring disease and identifying new illness. The results from a urine test can prompt a change in a patient's medical management. Urine testing is not a new procedure: as far back as the ancient Egyptians there are descriptions of polyuria. In 7th Century AD, Protosharis suggested that it was important to look at the colour of urine and by 1674 Thomas Willis, a professor at Oxford University, recorded that the urine of his patients with diabetes tasted sweet (Beer, 1996).

Manual evacuation of faeces.

Controversy surrounds the manual evacuation of faeces by nurses, and many are confused about their professional and legal responsibilities when asked to undertake this procedure. The argument that it is a well established and successful procedure is supported by many professionals, but there is very little documented evidence of its effectiveness as a method of bowel management.