Barriers and facilitators to deprescribing in primary care: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Managing polypharmacy is a challenge for healthcare systems globally. It is also a health inequality concern as it can expose some of the most vulnerable in society to unnecessary medications and adverse drug-related events. Care for most patients with multimorbidity and polypharmacy occurs in primary care. Safe deprescribing interventions can reduce exposure to inappropriate polypharmacy. However, these are not fully accepted or routinely implemented. AIM: To identify barriers and facilitators to safe deprescribing interventions for adults with multimorbidity and polypharmacy in primary care. DESIGN & SETTING: A systematic review of studies published from 2000, examining safe deprescribing interventions for adults with multimorbidity and polypharmacy. METHOD: A search of electronic databases: MEDLINE, Embase, Cumulative Index of Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINHAL), Cochrane, and Health Management Information Consortium (HMIC) from inception to 26 Feb 2019, using an agreed search strategy. This was supplemented by handsearching of relevant journals, and screening of reference lists and citations of included studies. RESULTS: In total, 40 studies from 14 countries were identified. Cultural and organisational barriers included: a culture of diagnosing and prescribing; evidence-based guidance focused on single diseases; a lack of evidence-based guidance for the care of older people with multimorbidities; and a lack of shared communication, decision-making systems, tools, and resources. Interpersonal and individual-level barriers included: professional etiquette; fragmented care; prescribers' and patients' uncertainties; and gaps in tailored support. Facilitators included: prudent prescribing; greater availability and acceptability of non-pharmacological alternatives; resources; improved communication, collaboration, knowledge, and understanding; patient-centred care; and shared decision-making. CONCLUSION: A whole systems, patient-centred approach to safe deprescribing interventions is required, involving key decision-makers, healthcare professionals, patients, and carers.

The effectiveness of continuous quality improvement for developing professional practice and improving health care outcomes: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Efforts to improve the quality, safety, and efficiency of health care provision have often focused on changing approaches to the way services are organized and delivered. Continuous quality improvement (CQI), an approach used extensively in industrial and manufacturing sectors, has been used in the health sector. Despite the attention given to CQI, uncertainties remain as to its effectiveness given the complex and diverse nature of health systems. This review assesses the effectiveness of CQI across different health care settings, investigating the importance of different components of the approach. METHODS: We searched 11 electronic databases: MEDLINE, CINAHL, EMBASE, AMED, Academic Search Complete, HMIC, Web of Science, PsycINFO, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, LISTA, and NHS EED to February 2019. Also, we searched reference lists of included studies and systematic reviews, as well as checking published protocols for linked papers. We selected randomized controlled trials (RCTs) within health care settings involving teams of health professionals, evaluating the effectiveness of CQI. Comparators included current usual practice or different strategies to manage organizational change. Outcomes were health care professional performance or patient outcomes. Studies were published in English. RESULTS: Twenty-eight RCTs assessed the effectiveness of different approaches to CQI with a non-CQI comparator in various settings, with interventions differing in terms of the approaches used, their duration, meetings held, people involved, and training provided. All RCTs were considered at risk of bias, undermining their results. Findings suggested that the benefits of CQI compared to a non-CQI comparator on clinical process, patient, and other outcomes were limited, with less than half of RCTs showing any effect. Where benefits were evident, it was usually on clinical process measures, with the model used (i.e., Plan-Do-Study-Act, Model of Improvement), the meeting type (i.e., involving leaders discussing implementation) and their frequency (i.e., weekly) having an effect. None considered socio-economic health inequalities. CONCLUSIONS: Current evidence suggests the benefits of CQI in improving health care are uncertain, reflecting both the poor quality of evaluations and the complexities of health services themselves. Further mixed-methods evaluations are needed to understand how the health service can use this proven approach. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Protocol registered on PROSPERO (CRD42018088309).

Maintaining relevance in HIV systematic reviews: an evaluation of Cochrane reviews.

BACKGROUND: Research turnover in the HIV field is rapid, and as a result, maintaining high-quality, up-to-date, and relevant systematic reviews is a challenge. One approach is to frequently update published reviews. METHODS: We evaluated the methods and relevance of all HIV systematic reviews and protocols published in the Cochrane Library over a 16-year period (2000-2016) to determine the need to update published reviews or complete of reviews in progress. RESULTS: Of 148 published reviews and protocols, 129 (87%) were identified as not for updating or progression to publication, mostly due to research questions which were either entirely outdated or addressed questions in an outdated manner (N = 89; 60%); this was anticipated for older reviews, but was found also to be the case for recent publications. Some research questions were also inadequately conceptualized, particularly when complex pragmatic trials or behavioral interventions were included. CONCLUSIONS: We suggest that authors clearly characterize interventions and synthesis approaches in their review protocols. In research fields, such as HIV, where questions change frequently, systematic reviews and protocols should be regularly re-evaluated to ensure relevance to current questions. This process of re-evaluation should be incorporated into the methods of living systematic reviews.