Digital Medication Management in Polypharmacy­Findings of a Cluster-Randomized, Controlled Trial With a Stepped-Wedge Design in Primary Care Practices (AdAM).

BACKGROUND: Inappropriate drug prescriptions for patients with polypharmacy can have avoidable adverse consequences. We studied the effects of a clinical decision-support system (CDSS) for medication management on hospitalizations and mortality. METHODS: This stepped-wedge, cluster-randomized, controlled trial involved an open cohort of adult patients with polypharmacy in primary care practices (=clusters) in Westphalia-Lippe, Germany. During the period of the intervention, their medication lists were checked annually using the CDSS. The CDSS warns against inappropriate prescriptions on the basis of patient-related health insurance data. The combined primary endpoint consisted of overall mortality and hospitalization for any reason. The secondary endpoints were mortality, hospitalizations, and high-risk prescription. We analyzed the quarterly health insurance data of the intention-to-treat population with a mixed logistic model taking account of clustering and repeated measurements. Sensitivity analyses addressed effects of the COVID-19 pandemic and other effects. RESULTS: 688 primary care practices were randomized, and data were obtained on 42 700 patients over 391 994 quarter years. No significant reduction was found in either the primary endpoint (odds ratio [OR] 1.00; 95% confidence interval [0.95; 1.04]; p = 0.8716) or the secondary endpoints (hospitalizations: OR 1.00 [0.95; 1.05]; mortality: OR 1.04 [0.92; 1.17]; high-risk prescription: OR 0.98 [0.92; 1.04]). CONCLUSION: The planned analyses did not reveal any significant effect of the intervention. Pandemic-adjusted analyses yielded evidence that the mortality of adult patients with polypharmacy might potentially be lowered by the CDSS. Controlled trials with appropriate follow-up are needed to prove that a CDSS has significant effects on mortality in patients with polypharmacy.

How do middle-aged patients and their healthcare providers manage multimorbidity? Results of a qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: It is particularly difficult for healthcare providers to deliver optimal medical care to multimorbid middle-aged persons because patients' professional activities, family lives, and other everyday responsibilities hinder them from making necessary lifestyle changes. Our aim was to find out how patients and healthcare providers view and manage the problems of dealing with multimorbidity in middle age. METHODS AND FINDINGS: This qualitative study consisted of three steps. First, we conducted semi-structured in-depth interviews with 15 purposively sampled middle-aged persons living with multimorbidity to explore the experiences of care in the context of their leisure time, family lives, and work. Second, further individual interviews were carried out to find out the views of 14 healthcare providers. Third, the results of the interviews with patients and healthcare providers were presented to and discussed with four healthcare providers at an interprofessional workshop. Interview data was coded using an inductive-deductive approach and analyzed using content analysis. While patients reflected on challenges in several life domains, healthcare providers differentiated between levels of challenges. Both shared recommendations for better care including i) helping patients cope, ii) providing relief in activities of daily living, iii) continuity of care, iv) interprofessional cooperation, v) health promotion/prevention, vi) expansion of health services and vii) general system-level changes. Furthermore, the healthcare provider workshop highlighted the importance of increasing patient-centeredness, reducing complexity through a care coordinator and promoting interprofessional cooperation/networking. CONCLUSIONS: To further improve the care of patients living with multimorbidity, barriers to managing multiple chronic conditions and facilitators to navigating complex care scenarios should be explored not only for people beyond working age, but for individuals in their mid-life specifically.

Differences in opioid prescription rates between patients with musculoskeletal disorders enrolled in coordinated ambulatory healthcare and patients receiving usual care: a retrospective observational cohort study.

OBJECTIVES: To compare opioid prescription rates between patients enrolled in coordinated ambulatory care and patients receiving usual care. DESIGN: In this retrospective cohort study, we analysed claims data for insured patients with non-specific/specific back pain or osteoarthritis of hip or knee from 2014 to 2017. SETTING: The study was based on administrative data provided by the statutory health insurance fund 'Allgemeine Ortskrankenkasse', in the state of Baden-Wurttemberg, Germany. PARTICIPANTS: The intervention group consisted of patients enrolled in a coordinated ambulatory healthcare model; the control group included patients receiving usual care. Outcomes were overall strong and weak opioid prescriptions. Generalised linear regression models were used to analyse the effect of the intervention. RESULTS: Overall, 46 001 (non-specific 18 787/specific 27 214) patients with back pain and 19 366 patients with osteoarthritis belonged to the intervention group, and 7038 (2803/4235) and 963 patients to the control group, respectively. No significant difference in opioid prescriptions existed between the groups. However, the chance of being prescribed strong opioids was significantly lower in the intervention group (non-specific back pain: Odds Ratio (OR) 0.735, 95% Confidential Interval (CI) 0.563 to 0.960; specific back pain: OR 0.702, 95% CI 0.577 to 0.852; osteoarthritis: OR 0.644, 95% CI 0.464 to 0.892). The chance of being prescribed weak opioids was significantly higher in patients with specific back pain (OR 1.243, 95% CI 1.032 to 1.497) and osteoarthritis (OR 1.493, 95% CI 1.037 to 2.149) in the intervention group. CONCLUSION: Coordinated ambulatory healthcare appears to be associated with a lower prescription rate for strong opioids in patients with chronic musculoskeletal disorders. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: German Clinical Trials Register (DRKS00017548).

Use of an Electronic Medication Management Support System in Patients with Polypharmacy in General Practice: A Quantitative Process Evaluation of the AdAM Trial.

Polypharmacy is associated with a risk of negative health outcomes. Potentially inappropriate medications, interactions resulting from contradicting medical guidelines, and inappropriate monitoring, all increase the risk. This process evaluation (PE) of the AdAM study investigates implementation and use of a computerized decision-support system (CDSS). The CDSS analyzes medication appropriateness by including claims data, and hence provides general practitioners (GPs) with full access to patients' medical treatments. We based our PE on pseudonymized logbook entries into the CDSS and used the four dimensions of the Medical Research Council PE framework. Reach, which examines the extent to which the intended study population was included, and Dose, Fidelity, and Tailoring, which examine how the software was actually used by GPs. The PE was explorative and descriptive. Study participants were representative of the target population, except for patients receiving a high level of nursing care, as they were treated less frequently. GPs identified and corrected inappropriate prescriptions flagged by the CDSS. The frequency and intensity of interventions documented in the form of logbook entries lagged behind expectations, raising questions about implementation barriers to the intervention and the limitations of the PE. Impossibility to connect the CDSS to GPs' electronic medical records (EMR) of GPs due to technical conditions in the German healthcare system may have hindered the implementation of the intervention. Data logged in the CDSS may underestimate medication changes in patients, as documentation was voluntary and already included in EMR.

Use of an electronic medication management support system in patients with polypharmacy in general practice: study protocol of a quantitative process evaluation of the AdAM trial.

BACKGROUND: Interventional studies on polypharmacy often fail to significantly improve patient-relevant outcomes, or confine themselves to measuring surrogate parameters. Interventions and settings are complex, with many factors affecting results. The AdAM study's aim is to reduce hospitalization and death by requiring general practitioners (GPs) to use a computerized decision-support system (CDSS). The study will undergo a process evaluation to identify factors for successful implementation and to assess whether the intervention was implemented as intended. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate our complex intervention, based on the Medical Research Council's guideline dimensions. RESEARCH QUESTIONS: We will assess implementation (reach, fidelity, dose, tailoring) by asking: (1) Who took part in the intervention (proportion of GPs using the CDSS, proportion of patients enrolled in them)? Information on GPs' and patients' characteristics will also be collected. (2) How many and which medication alerts were dealt with? (3) Was the intervention implemented as intended? (4) On what days did GPs use the intervention tool? METHODS: The process evaluation is part of a stepped-wedge cluster-randomized controlled trial. Characteristics of practices, GPs and patients using the CDSS will be compared with the non-participating population. CDSS log data will be analyzed to evaluate how the number of medication alerts changed between baseline and 2 months later, and to identify the kind of alerts that were dealt with. Comparison of enrolled patients on weekdays versus weekends will shed light on GPs' use of the CDSS in the absence or presence of patients. Outcomes will be presented using descriptive statistics, and significance tests will be used to identify associations between them. We will conduct subgroup analyses, including time effects to account for software improvements. DISCUSSION: This study protocol is the basis for conducting analyses of the quantitative process evaluation. By providing insight into how GPs conduct medication reviews, the evaluation will provide context to the trial results and support their interpretation. The evaluation relies on the proper documentation by GPs, potentially limiting its explanatory power.

Everyday lives of middle-aged persons living with multimorbidity: protocol of a mixed-methods systematic review.

INTRODUCTION: Multimorbidity is the simultaneous occurrence of several (chronic) diseases. Persons living with multimorbidity not only have complex care needs, but the burden of care often has a negative impact on their family lives, leisure time and professional activities. The aim of this project is to systematically review the literature to assess how multimorbidity affects the everyday lives of middle-aged persons, and to find out what abilities and resources help in the development of coping strategies to overcome the challenges of living with it. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We will systematically search for studies reporting on the everyday life experiences of middle-aged persons (30-60 years) with multimorbidity (≥2 chronic conditions) in MEDLINE, CINAHL, PsycINFO, Social Sciences Citation Index, Social Sciences Citation Index Expanded, PSYNDEX and The Cochrane Library from inception. We will include all primary studies that use quantitative, qualitative and mixed methodologies, irrespective of publication date/study setting.Two independent reviewers will screen titles/abstracts/full texts, extract data from the selected studies and present evidence in terms of study/population characteristics, data collection method and the phenomenon of interest, that is, everyday life experiences of middle-aged persons with multimorbidity. Risk of bias will be independently assessed by two reviewers using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool. We will use a convergent integrated approach on qualitative/quantitative studies, whereby information will be synthesised narratively and, if possible, quantitatively. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval is not required due to the nature of the proposed systematic review. Results from this research will be disseminated at relevant (inter)national conferences and via publication in peer-reviewed journals. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42021226699.

"I must, and I can live with that": a thematic analysis of patients' perspectives on polypharmacy and a digital decision support system for GPs.

BACKGROUND: To investigate patients' perspectives on polypharmacy and the use of a digital decision support system to assist general practitioners (GPs) in performing medication reviews. METHODS: Qualitative interviews with patients or informal caregivers recruited from participants in a cluster-randomized controlled clinical trial (cRCT). The interviews were transcribed verbatim and analyzed using thematic analysis. RESULTS: We conducted 13 interviews and identified the following seven themes: the patients successfully integrated medication use in their everyday lives, used medication plans, had both good and bad personal experiences with their drugs, regarded their healthcare providers as the main source of medication-related information, discussed medication changes with their GPs, had trusting relationships with them, and viewed the use of digital decision support tools for medication reviews positively. No unwanted adverse effects were reported. CONCLUSIONS: Despite drug-related problems, patients appeared to cope well with their medications. They also trusted their GPs, despite acknowledging polypharmacy to be a complex field for them. The use of a digital support system was appreciated and linked to the hope that reasons for selecting specific medication regimens would become more comprehensible. Further research with a more diverse sampling might add more patient perspectives. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03430336 . Registered on February 6, 2018.

Everyday Lives of Middle-Aged Persons with Multimorbidity: A Mixed Methods Systematic Review.

The healthcare burden of patients with multimorbidity may negatively affect their family lives, leisure time and professional activities. This mixed methods systematic review synthesizes studies to assess how multimorbidity affects the everyday lives of middle-aged persons, and identifies skills and resources that may help them overcome that burden. Two independent reviewers screened title/abstracts/full texts in seven databases, extracted data and used the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT) to assess risk of bias (RoB). We synthesized findings from 44 studies (49,519 patients) narratively and, where possible, quantitatively. Over half the studies provided insufficient information to assess representativeness or response bias. Two studies assessed global functioning, 15 examined physical functioning, 18 psychosocial functioning and 28 work functioning. Nineteen studies explored skills and resources that help people cope with multimorbidity. Middle-aged persons with multimorbidity have greater impairment in global, physical and psychosocial functioning, as well as lower employment rates and work productivity, than those without. Certain skills and resources help them cope with their everyday lives. To provide holistic and dynamic health care plans that meet the needs of middle-aged persons, health professionals need greater understanding of the experience of coping with multimorbidity and the associated healthcare burden.