Deprescribing as a Way to Reduce Inappropriate Use of Drugs for Overactive Bladder in Primary Care (DROP): Protocol for a Cluster Randomized Controlled Trial With an Embedded Explanatory Sequential Mixed Methods Study.

BACKGROUND: Potentially inappropriate medication remains a significant concern in general practices, particularly in the context of overactive bladder (OAB) treatment for individuals aged 65 years and older. This study focuses on the exploration of alternative options for treating OAB and the deprescribing of anticholinergic drugs commonly used in OAB. The research aims to comprehensively evaluate the efficiency of deprescribing through a mixed methods approach, combining quantitative assessment and qualitative exploration of perceptions, experiences, and potential barriers among patients and health care personnel. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to evaluate the efficiency and safety of the intervention in which health care staff in primary care encourage patients to participate in deprescribing their drugs for OAB. In addition, we aim to identify factors contributing to or obstructing the deprescribing process that will drive more informed decisions in the field of deprescribing and support effective and safe treatment of patients. METHODS: The drugs for overactive bladder in primary care (DROP) study uses a rigorous research design, using a randomized controlled trial (RCT) with an embedded sequential explanatory mixed methods approach. All general practices within the North Denmark Region will be paired based on the number of general practitioners (GPs) and urban or rural locations. The matched pairs will be randomized into intervention and control groups. The intervention group will receive an algorithm designed to guide the deprescribing of drugs for OAB, promoting appropriate medication use. Quantitative data will be collected from the RCT including data from Danish registries for prescription analysis. Qualitative data will be obtained through interviews and focus groups with GPs, staff members, and patients. Finally, the quantitative and qualitative findings are merged to understand deprescribing for OAB comprehensively. This integrated approach enhances insights and supports future intervention improvement. RESULTS: The DROP study is currently in progress, with randomization of general practices underway. While they have not been invited to participate yet, they will be. The inclusion of GP practices is scheduled from December 2023 to April 2024. The follow-up period for each patient is 6 months. Results will be analyzed through an intention-to-treat analysis for the RCT and a thematic analysis for the qualitative component. Quantitative outcomes will focus on changes in prescriptions and symptoms, while the qualitative analysis will explore experiences and perceptions. CONCLUSIONS: The DROP study aims to provide an evidence-based intervention in primary care that ensures the deprescription of drugs for OAB when there is an unfavorable risk-benefit profile. The DROP study's contribution lies in generating evidence for deprescribing practices and influencing best practices in health care. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT06110975; https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT06110975. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): DERR1-10.2196/56277.

A feasibility and pilot study of a "lifelong learning" intervention for people with dementia.

BACKGROUND: Developing evidence for the use of psychosocial interventions for people with dementia is a research priority. This pilot study aimed to provide variability estimates for a set of outcome measures that would inform the development of a more extensive controlled study. The larger study will seek to explore the effect of attending a lifelong learning intervention for people with dementia compared to receiving treatment as usual. This pilot and feasibility stage also analysed how data collectors and researchers evaluated the use of the outcome measures in a sample of people with mild to moderate dementia. METHODS: Before initiating the pilot study, a participant consultation was conducted with people with dementia, who attend a lifelong learning service known as a dementia school, and their teachers. From this consultation, the research outcomes identified were the mini-mental state examination (MMSE), Quality-of-Life Alzheimer's Disease (QoL-AD), General Self-Efficacy Scale (GSE), Rosenberg self-esteem scale, and the Friendship scale. The following study was divided into two steps. In step 1, participants were people with dementia attending a dementia school (intervention group) or usual services (control group). The participants were tested at baseline and at a 6-month follow-up. Data were collected between November 2018 and July 2019. In step 2, feasibility and acceptability issues with the recruitment of participants, data collection process, and outcome measures, identified in step 1, were evaluated through a data collector focus group. RESULTS: Fifty-five people with dementia were included in the analysis. Step 1 provided estimates of changes from baseline to follow-up, and ancillary standard deviations were supplied for all outcome measures. Step 2 provided reflections on the feasibility and acceptability of the intervention, data collection, and outcome measures. This included views on how people with dementia experience participating in a test situation. CONCLUSIONS: This study provided estimates of change and variability in the outcome measures. Additionally, issues regarding data collection were identified and should be addressed in future studies. The project demonstrated how to support people with dementia to participate in research that is meaningful to them. TRIAL REGISTRATION: According to national legislation, registration with a database of clinical studies was optional, as the study evaluated existing activities rather than a clinical intervention.

Safe Medication in Nursing Home Residents Through the Development and Evaluation of an Intervention (SAME): Protocol for a Fully Integrated Mixed Methods Study With a Cocreative Approach.

BACKGROUND: Medication safety is increasingly challenging patient safety in growing aging populations. Developing positive patient safety cultures is acknowledged as a primary goal to improve patient safety, but evidence on the interventions to do so is inconclusive. Nursing home residents are often cognitively and physically impaired and are therefore highly reliant on frontline health care providers. Thus, interventions to improve medication safety of nursing home residents through patient safety culture among providers are needed. Using cocreative partnerships, integrating knowledge of residents and their relatives, and ensuring managerial support could be beneficial. OBJECTIVE: The primary aim of the Safe Medication of Nursing Home Residents Through Development and Evaluation of an Intervention (SAME) study is to improve medication safety for nursing home residents through developing an intervention by gaining experiential knowledge of patient safety culture in cocreative partnerships, integrating knowledge of residents and their relatives, and ensuring managerial support. METHODS: The fully integrated mixed method study will be conducted using an integrated knowledge translation approach. Patient safety culture within nursing homes will first be explored through qualitative focus groups (stage 1) including nursing home residents, their relatives, and frontline health care providers. This will inform the development of an intervention in a multidisciplinary panel (stage 2) including cocreators representing the medication management process across the health care system. Evaluation of the intervention will be done in a randomized controlled trial set at nursing homes (stage 3). The primary outcome will be changes in the mean scale score of an adapted version of the Danish "Safety Attitudes Questionnaire" (SAQ-DK) for use in nursing homes. Patient safety-related outcomes will be collected through Danish health registers to assess safety issues and effects, including medication, contacts to health care, diagnoses, and mortality. Finally, a mixed methods analysis on patient safety culture in nursing homes will be done (stage 4), integrating qualitative data (stage 1) and quantitative data (stage 3) to comprehensively understand patient safety culture as a key to medication safety. RESULTS: The SAME study is ongoing. Focus groups were carried out from April 2021 to September 2021 and the workshop in September 2021. Baseline SAQ-DK data were collected in January 2022 with expected follow-up in January 2023. Final data analysis is expected in spring 2024. CONCLUSIONS: The SAME study will help not only to generate evidence on interventions to improve medication safety of nursing home residents through patient safety culture but also to give insight into possible impacts of using cocreativity to guide the development. Thus, findings will address multiple gaps in evidence to guide future patient safety improvement efforts within primary care settings of political and scientific scope. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04990986; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04990986. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): DERR1-10.2196/43538.

Potentially inappropriate prescriptions in patients admitted to a psychiatric hospital.

Background Very little is known about the general appropriateness of prescribing for psychiatric patients. Aims To identify prevalence and types of potentially inappropriate prescribing (PIP) of psychotropic and somatic medications, to assess the severity of potential clinical consequences and to identify possible predictive factors of PIP in a sample of adult psychiatric in-patients. Methods A descriptive, cross-sectional design using medication reviews by clinical pharmacologists to identify PIP during a 3-month period. The setting was in-patient units in a psychiatric department of a Danish university hospital during a 3-month period (September 2013-November 2013). Patients medication lists (n = 207) were reviewed at the time of admission and all identified PIPs were assessed for potential consequences by clinical pharmacologists. Results There were 349 PIP identified in 1291 prescriptions. The proportion of patients found to have at least one PIP was 123/207 (59%) and the proportions of patients with at least one PIP assessed to be potentially serious or fatal was 69/207 (33%) and 24/207 (12%), respectively. Interactions between drugs 125/207 (36%) and too high doses of drugs 56/207 (16%) were the most frequent PIP. Predictive factors for PIP were polypharmacy (>5 prescriptions) and having one or more somatic diagnoses. Conclusion PIP is common in psychiatric patients and potentially fatal. Particularly polypharmacy (>5 prescriptions) and concomitant somatic illness were associated with the probability of PIP. Improving the quality of prescribing might benefit from an interprofessional approach and thus better training of physicians and nurses is needed in order to minimize PIP.

The medication process in a psychiatric hospital: are errors a potential threat to patient safety?

PURPOSE: To investigate the frequency, type, and potential severity of errors in several stages of the medication process in an inpatient psychiatric setting. METHODS: A cross-sectional study using three methods for detecting errors: (1) direct observation; (2) unannounced control visits in the wards collecting dispensed drugs; and (3) chart reviews. All errors, except errors in discharge summaries, were assessed for potential consequences by two clinical pharmacologists. SETTING: Three psychiatric wards with adult patients at Aalborg University Hospital, Denmark, from January 2010-April 2010. THE OBSERVATIONAL UNIT: The individual handling of medication (prescribing, dispensing, and administering). RESULTS: In total, 189 errors were detected in 1,082 opportunities for error (17%) of which 84/998 (8%) were assessed as potentially harmful. The frequency of errors was: prescribing, 10/189 (5%); dispensing, 18/189 (10%); administration, 142/189 (75%); and discharge summaries, 19/189 (10%). The most common errors were omission of pro re nata dosing regime in computerized physician order entry, omission of dose, lack of identity control, and omission of drug. CONCLUSION: Errors throughout the medication process are common in psychiatric wards to an extent which resembles error rates in somatic care. Despite a substantial proportion of errors with potential to harm patients, very few errors were considered potentially fatal. Medical staff needs greater awareness of medication safety and guidelines related to the medication process. Many errors in this study might potentially be prevented by nursing staff when handling medication and observing patients for effect and side effects of medication. The nurses' role in psychiatric medication safety should be further explored as nurses appear to be in the unique position to intercept errors before they reach the patient.