Deprescribing antihypertensive drugs in frail older adults.

Antihypertensive drugs are commonly used by older adults because of the high prevalence of cardiovascular disease and its risk factors, and the increased absolute benefit of blood pressure reduction with increasing age. Clinical trials of blood pressure reduction in older adults have generally excluded older adults with multimorbidity, frailty and limited life expectancy. In this population, the benefit-harm ratio of aggressive blood pressure lowering may become unfavourable; a more relaxed blood pressure target may be appropriate; and deprescribing (cessation or dose reduction) of one or more antihypertensive drugs can be considered. Before deprescribing an antihypertensive drug, it is important to consider other indications for which it may have been prescribed (e.g. heart failure with reduced ejection fraction, diabetic nephropathy, atrial fibrillation). Evidence from randomised controlled deprescribing trials indicates that it is possible to deprescribe antihypertensives in frail older people. However, some patients may experience an increase in blood pressure that warrants restarting the drug. There are limited data on long-term outcomes (follow-up in deprescribing trials ranged from 4 to 56 weeks). The risk of adverse outcomes associated with deprescribing, such as withdrawal effects, can be minimised through appropriate planning, patient engagement, dose tapering and monitoring.

Clinical practice guideline for deprescribing opioid analgesics: summary of recommendations.

INTRODUCTION: Long term opioids are commonly prescribed to manage pain. Dose reduction or discontinuation (deprescribing) can be challenging, even when the potential harms of continuation outweigh the perceived benefits. The Evidence-based clinical practice guideline for deprescribing opioid analgesics was developed using robust guideline development processes and Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology, and contains deprescribing recommendations for adults prescribed opioids for pain. MAIN RECOMMENDATIONS: Eleven recommendations provide advice about when, how and for whom opioid deprescribing should be considered, while noting the need to consider each person's goals, values and preferences. The recommendations aim to achieve: implementation of a deprescribing plan at the point of opioid initiation; initiation of opioid deprescribing for persons with chronic non-cancer or chronic cancer-survivor pain if there is a lack of overall and clinically meaningful improvement in function, quality of life or pain, a lack of progress towards meeting agreed therapeutic goals, or the person is experiencing serious or intolerable opioid-related adverse effects; gradual and individualised deprescribing, with regular monitoring and review; consideration of opioid deprescribing for individuals at high risk of opioid-related harms; avoidance of opioid deprescribing for persons nearing the end of life unless clinically indicated; avoidance of opioid deprescribing for persons with a severe opioid use disorder, with the initiation of evidence-based care, such as medication-assisted treatment of opioid use disorder; and use of evidence-based co-interventions to facilitate deprescribing, including interdisciplinary, multidisciplinary or multimodal care. CHANGES IN MANAGEMENT AS A RESULT OF THESE GUIDELINES: To our knowledge, these are the first evidence-based guidelines for opioid deprescribing. The recommendations intend to facilitate safe and effective deprescribing to improve the quality of care for persons taking opioids for pain.

Tools to evaluate medication management for caregivers of people living with dementia: A systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Caregivers often undertake medication management for people living with dementia without formal training. There is a need to evaluate caregiver medication management practices for people living with dementia to identify and address the key issues that contribute to caregiver burden. OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to identify and summarize approaches that evaluate medication management for caregivers of people living with dementia and appraise caregiver's involvement in aspects of medication management. SEARCH STRATEGY: A systematic search was undertaken in five databases: Medline, Embase, PsycINFO, Scopus and International Pharmaceutical Abstracts. Studies written in English that contained tools and surveys that evaluated aspects of medication management for caregivers of PWD were included. RESULTS: A total of 10 studies were included. Medication selection was assessed in six studies, supply and monitoring/review was captured in seven studies, with administration assessed in nine studies. Caregivers were commonly involved in decision-making for medication changes (77.1%-86.8%) and in the ordering (55.9%-86.0%) and collection (87.0%-92.4%) of medications. Reported caregiver involvement in medication administration showed a wide range (44%-94.7%) between the studies. Challenges in administration were commonly related to polypharmacy and dosage regimen complexity. CONCLUSIONS: Current tools capture specific aspects of medication management, with medication administration the most evaluated aspect of medication management. Future research is needed to develop a tool to holistically evaluate the complexities of medication management for caregivers of people living with dementia to minimize adverse events at transitions of care. PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: From the authors' previous research, caregivers highlighted the need to address key issues in medication management for people living with dementia.

Government Direct-to-Consumer Education to Reduce Prescription Opioid Use: A Cluster Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Direct-to-consumer education reduces chronic sedative use. The effectiveness of this approach for prescription opioids among patients with chronic noncancer pain remains untested. Objectives: To evaluate the effectiveness of a government-led educational information brochure mailed to community-dwelling, long-term opioid consumers to reduce prescription opioid use compared with usual care. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cluster randomized clinical trial was conducted from July 2018 to January 2019 in Manitoba, Canada. All adults with long-term opioid prescriptions were enrolled (n = 4225). Participants were identified via the Manitoba Drug Program Information Network. Individuals receiving palliative care or with a diagnosis of cancer or dementia were excluded. Data were analyzed from July 2019 to March 2020. Intervention: Participants were clustered according to their primary care clinic and randomized to the intervention (a codesigned direct-to-consumer educational brochure sent by mail) or usual care (comparator group). Main Outcomes and Measures: The main outcome was discontinuation of opioid prescriptions at the participant level after 6 months, ascertained by pharmacy drug claims. Secondary outcomes included dose reduction (in morphine milligram equivalents [MME]) and/or therapeutic switch. Reduction in opioid use was assessed using generalized estimating equations to account for clustering, with prespecified subgroup analyses by age and sex. Analysis was intention to treat. Results: Of 4206 participants, 2409 (57.3%) were male; mean (SD) age was 60.0 (14.4) years. Mean (SD) baseline opioid use was comparable between groups (intervention, 157.7 [179.7] MME/d; control, 153.4 [181.8] MME/d). After 6 months, 235 of 2136 participants (11.0%) in 127 clusters in the intervention group no longer filled opioid prescriptions compared with 228 of 2070 (11.0%) in 124 clusters in the comparator group (difference, 0.0%; 95% CI, -1.9% to 1.9%). More participants in the intervention group than in the control group reduced their dose (1410 [66.0%] vs 1307 [63.1%]; difference, 2.8% [95% CI, 0.0%-5.7%]). Receipt of the brochure led to greater dose reductions for participants who were male (difference, 3.9%; 95% CI, 0.1%-7.7%), aged 18 to 64 years (difference, 3.7%; 95% CI, 0.2%-7.2%), or living in urban areas (difference, 5.9%; 95% CI, 1.9%-9.9%) compared with usual care. Conclusions and Relevance: In this cluster randomized clinical trial, no significant difference in the prevalence of opioid cessation was observed after 6 months between the intervention and usual care groups; however, the intervention resulted in more adults reducing their opioid dose compared with usual care. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03400384.

Survey content validation evaluating the dissemination and implementation of deprescribing guidelines.

BACKGROUND: Policies, protocols and processes within organisations can facilitate or hinder guideline adoption. There is limited knowledge on the strategies used by organisations to disseminate and implement evidence-based deprescribing guidelines or their impact. METHODS: We aimed to develop an online survey targeting key organisations involved in deprescribing guideline endorsement, dissemination, modification or translation internationally. Survey questions were drafted, mirroring the six components of the reach, effectiveness, adoption, implementation and maintenance (RE-AIM) framework. Content validation was undertaken and established by a panel of clinicians, researchers and implementation experts. RESULTS: A 52-item survey underwent two rounds of content validation. The minimum threshold (I-CVI > 0.78) for relevance and importance was met for 39 items (75%) in the first round and 44 of 48 items (92%) in the second round. The expert panel concluded that the adoption, implementation and effectiveness survey sections were largely relevant and important to this topic, whereas the reach and maintenance sections were harder to understand and may be less pertinent to the research question. CONCLUSIONS: A 44-item survey investigating dissemination and implementation strategies for deprescribing guidelines has been developed and its content validated. Widespread survey distribution may identify effective strategies and inform dissemination and implementation planning for newly developed guidelines.

Opioids for Acute Musculoskeletal Pain: A Systematic Review with Meta-Analysis.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the efficacy of opioids for people with acute musculoskeletal pain against placebo. STUDY DESIGN: Systematic review and meta-analyses of randomised, placebo-controlled trials of opioid analgesics for acute musculoskeletal pain in any setting. The primary outcomes were pain and disability at the immediate timepoint (< 24 h). DATA SOURCES: Multiple databases were searched from their inception to February 22nd, 2023. DATA SYNTHESIS: Continuous outcomes were converted to a 0-100 scale. Dichotomous outcomes were presented as risk differences. Risk of bias and certainty of evidence was assessed. RESULTS: We located 17 trials (1 intravenous and 16 oral route of administration). For adults, high certainty evidence from 11 comparisons shows that oral opioids provide small benefits relative to placebo in the immediate term for pain (mean difference [MD] - 8.8 95% confidence interval [CI] - 12.0 to - 5.6). For disability, the difference is uncertain (MD - 6.2, 95% CI - 17.8 to 5.4). Opioid groups were at higher risk of adverse events (MD 14.3%, 95% CI 8.3-20.4%, very low certainty). There was moderate certainty evidence of a large effect of IV morphine on sciatica pain (MD -42.5, 95% CI - 49.9 to - 35.1, n = 197, 1 study). In paediatric populations, moderate certainty evidence from 3 trials shows that oral opioids probably do not provide benefit beyond that of placebo for pain (MD 6.1, 95% CI - 1.7 to 12.8) and there was no evidence for disability. There was low certainty evidence that there may be no difference in adverse events (MD 10.4%, 95% CI - 0.6 to 21.4%). DISCUSSION: Intravenous morphine likely offers benefits, but oral opioids may not provide clinically meaningful benefits. PROSPERO REGISTRATION: CRD42021249346.

Deprescribing interventions in older adults: An overview of systematic reviews.

OBJECTIVE: The growing deprescribing field is challenged by a lack of consensus around evidence and knowledge gaps. The objective of this overview of systematic reviews was to summarize the review evidence for deprescribing interventions in older adults. METHODS: 11 databases were searched from 1st January 2005 to 16th March 2023 to identify systematic reviews. We summarized and synthesized the results in two steps. Step 1 summarized results reported by the included reviews (including meta-analyses). Step 2 involved a narrative synthesis of review results by outcome. Outcomes included medication-related outcomes (e.g., medication reduction, medication appropriateness) or twelve other outcomes (e.g., mortality, adverse events). We summarized outcomes according to subgroups (patient characteristics, intervention type and setting) when direct comparisons were available within the reviews. The quality of included reviews was assessed using A MeaSurement Tool to Assess systematic Reviews 2 (AMSTAR 2). RESULTS: We retrieved 3,228 unique citations and assessed 135 full-text articles for eligibility. Forty-eight reviews (encompassing 17 meta-analyses) were included. Thirty-one of the 48 reviews had a general deprescribing focus, 16 focused on specific medication classes or therapeutic categories and one included both. Twelve of 17 reviews meta-analyzed medication-related outcomes (33 outcomes: 25 favored the intervention, 7 found no difference, 1 favored the comparison). The narrative synthesis indicated that most interventions resulted in some evidence of medication reduction while for other outcomes we found primarily no evidence of an effect. Results were mixed for adverse events and few reviews reported adverse drug withdrawal events. Limited information was available for people with dementia, frailty and multimorbidity. All but one review scored low or critically low on quality assessment. CONCLUSION: Deprescribing interventions likely resulted in medication reduction but evidence on other outcomes, in particular relating to adverse events, or in vulnerable subgroups or settings was limited. Future research should focus on designing studies powered to examine harms, patient-reported outcomes, and effects on vulnerable subgroups. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42020178860.

What do clinical practice guidelines say about deprescribing? A scoping review.

INTRODUCTION: Deprescribing (medication dose reduction or cessation) is an integral component of appropriate prescribing. The extent to which deprescribing recommendations are included in clinical practice guidelines is unclear. This scoping review aimed to identify guidelines that contain deprescribing recommendations, qualitatively explore the content and format of deprescribing recommendations and estimate the proportion of guidelines that contain deprescribing recommendations. METHODS: Bibliographic databases and Google were searched for guidelines published in English from January 2012 to November 2022. Guideline registries were searched from January 2017 to February 2023. Two reviewers independently screened records from databases and Google for guidelines containing one or more deprescribing recommendations. A 10% sample of the guideline registries was screened to identify eligible guidelines and estimate the proportion of guidelines containing a deprescribing recommendation. Guideline and recommendation characteristics were extracted and language features of deprescribing recommendations including content, form, complexity and readability were examined using a conventional content analysis and the SHeLL Health Literacy Editor tool. RESULTS: 80 guidelines containing 316 deprescribing recommendations were included. Deprescribing recommendations had substantial variability in their format and terminology. Most guidelines contained recommendations regarding for who (75%, n=60), what (99%, n=89) and when or why (91%, n=73) to deprescribe, however, fewer guidelines (58%, n=46) contained detailed guidance on how to deprescribe. Approximately 29% of guidelines identified from the registries sample (n=14/49) contained one or more deprescribing recommendations. CONCLUSIONS: Deprescribing recommendations are increasingly being incorporated into guidelines, however, many guidelines do not contain clear and actionable recommendations on how to deprescribe which may limit effective implementation in clinical practice. A co-designed template or best practice guide, containing information on aspects of deprescribing recommendations that are essential or preferred by end-users should be developed and employed. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: osf.io/fbex4.

How is postoperative pain after hip and knee replacement managed? An analysis of two large hospitals in Australia.

BACKGROUND: Multimodal analgesia regimens are recommended for the postoperative period after hip and knee replacement surgeries. However, there are no data on practice patterns for analgesic use in the immediate postoperative period after hip and knee replacements in Australia. OBJECTIVES: To describe analgesic prescribing patterns in the inpatient postoperative phase for patients undergoing hip and knee replacement. METHODS: Retrospective study of electronic medical record data from two major hospitals in Sydney, Australia. We identified analgesic medication prescriptions for all patients aged 18 years and older who underwent hip or knee replacement surgery in 2019. We extracted data on pain medications prescribed while in the ward up until discharge. These were grouped into distinct categories based on the Anatomical Therapeutic Chemical classification. We described the frequency (%) of pain medications used by category and computed the average oral morphine equivalent daily dose (OMEDD) during hospitalisation. RESULTS: We identified 1282 surgeries in 1225 patients. Patients had a mean (SD) age of 69 (11.8) years; most (57.1%) were female. Over 99% of patients were prescribed opioid analgesics and paracetamol during their hospital stay. Most patients (61.4%) were managed with paracetamol and opioids only. The most common prescribed opioid was oxycodone (87.3% of patients). Only 19% of patients were prescribed nonsteroidal anti-inflammatories (NSAIDs). The median (IQR) average daily OMEDD was 50.2 mg (30.3-77.9). CONCLUSION: We identified high use of opioids analgesics as the main strategies for pain control after hip and knee replacement in hospital. Other analgesics were much less frequently used, such as NSAIDs, and always in combination with opioids and paracetamol.

Context matters: using an Evidence to Decision (EtD) framework to develop and encourage uptake of opioid deprescribing guideline recommendations at the point-of-care.

OBJECTIVES: To describe the development and use of an Evidence to Decision (EtD) framework when formulating recommendations for the Evidence-Based Clinical Practice Guideline for Deprescribing Opioid Analgesics. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: Evidence was derived from an overview of systematic reviews and qualitative studies conducted with healthcare professionals and people who take opioids for pain. A multidisciplinary guideline development group conducted extensive EtD framework review and iterative refinement to ensure that guideline recommendations captured contextual factors relevant to the guideline target setting and audience. RESULTS: The guideline development group considered and accounted for the complexities of opioid deprescribing at the individual and health system level, shaping recommendations and practice points to facilitate point-of-care use. Stakeholders exhibited diverse preferences, beliefs, and values. This variability, low certainty of evidence, and system-level policies and funding models impacted the strength of the generated recommendations, resulting in the formulation of four 'conditional' recommendations. CONCLUSION: The context within which evidence-based recommendations are considered, as well as the political and health system environment, can contribute to the success of recommendation implementation. Use of an EtD framework allowed for the development of implementable recommendations relevant at the point-of-care through consideration of limitations of the evidence and relevant contextual factors.

Patient-targeted interventions for opioid deprescribing: An overview of systematic reviews.

BACKGROUND: Deprescribing (reduction or cessation) of prescribed opioids can be challenging for both patients and healthcare professionals. OBJECTIVE: To synthesize and evaluate evidence from systematic reviews examining the effectiveness and outcomes of patient-targeted opioid deprescribing interventions for all types of pain. METHODS: Systematic searches were conducted in five databases with results screened against predetermined inclusion/exclusion criteria. Primary outcomes were (i) reduction in opioid dose, reported as change in oral Morphine Equivalent Daily Dose (oMEDD) and (ii) success of opioid deprescribing, reported as the proportion of the sample for which opioid use declined. Secondary outcomes included pain severity, physical function, quality of life and adverse events. The certainty of evidence was assessed using Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology. FINDINGS: Twelve reviews were eligible for inclusion. Interventions were heterogeneous in nature and included pharmacological (n = 4), physical (n = 3), procedural (n = 3), psychological or behavioural (n = 3) and mixed (n = 5) interventions. Multidisciplinary care programmes appeared to be the most effective intervention for opioid deprescribing; however, the certainty of evidence was low, with significant variability in opioid reduction across interventions. CONCLUSIONS: Evidence is too uncertain to draw firm conclusions about specific populations who may derive the greatest benefit from opioid deprescribing, warranting further investigation.

Nurses', Pharmacists' and Family Physicians' Perceptions of Psychotropic Medication Monitoring in Australian Long-Term Care Facilities: A Qualitative Framework Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Current evidence suggests that despite modest benefit in using targeted psychotropic medications in the geriatric population, there is significant iatrogenic morbidity and mortality. Monitoring of the use of psychotropic medications by health care professionals (HCPs) to reduce adverse effects is often suboptimal; however, there have been few theoretically informed studies as to why this is so. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to elucidate facilitators and barriers to psychotropic medication monitoring in long-term care facilities (LTCFs) from the viewpoint of nurses, pharmacists and family physicians. Secondly, it intended to identify targets for tailored intervention strategies to improve monitoring practices. METHODS: A purposive sample of 31 HCPs working in LTCFs in Sydney, New South Wales, Australia was recruited. Three cohorts consisted of twelve registered nurses, ten pharmacists and nine family physicians. Semi-structured interviews were conducted, assessing perceptions of psychotropic medication monitoring in LTCFs, facilitators, barriers and proposed solutions. Interviews were transcribed verbatim and thematically analyzed through an inductive coding approach. Themes were then mapped to Ferlie and Shortell's 'Four Levels of Change' framework for improving quality in healthcare. RESULTS: Monitoring was revealed as a multi-faceted concept, influenced by factors across individual, group, organization and system levels. Thematic analysis revealed six key themes pertinent to psychotropic monitoring in LTCFs: (1) engagement with monitoring, (2) monitoring capability, (3) opportunity to monitor, (4) roles and responsibilities, (5) communication and collaboration and (6) guidance and regulation. HCPs conceptualized monitoring differently, but consistently felt that monitoring in LTCFs was suboptimal, recognizing a need for guidance and resources to aid collaborative monitoring of psychotropic medications. HCPs internally situated within LTCFs (nurses) viewed psychotropic medication monitoring as a dynamic and ongoing phenomenon, occurring both formally and informally on a day-to-day basis. In contrast, externally situated HCPs (pharmacists and family physicians) typically associated medication monitoring with structured medication reviews and conceptualized monitoring as an intermittent and planned activity. CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS: Psychotropic monitoring is perceived by all HCPs as a shared responsibility; however, the conceptualization of monitoring differs between HCPs. HCPs' beliefs and attitudes require consideration when designing implementation strategies for interventions to ameliorate suboptimal monitoring practices.

"The lesser of two evils": a framework analysis of consumers' perspectives on opioid deprescribing and the development of opioid deprescribing guidelines.

ABSTRACT: Deprescribing opioids has been identified as an intervention to mitigate opioid harm; however, it is often challenging to implement interventions and communicate deprescribing decisions to consumers. The development of opioid deprescribing guidelines may provide guidance and support on when and how to reduce or cease opioids in routine care. This study aimed to explore the perspectives of opioid consumers on opioid deprescribing and determine factors to be considered in the development of opioid deprescribing guidelines. A purposive sample of 20 consumers using opioids for pain was recruited. Semistructured interviews were conducted, audio recorded, and transcribed verbatim. Inductive thematic analysis was undertaken, followed by a framework analysis informed by Bandura's Social Cognitive Theory. Behavioral, cognitive, and environmental factors influence consumers' attitudes and actions regarding opioid deprescribing. Significant barriers to opioid deprescribing were identified, including fears of pain and withdrawal effects, opioid-related stigma, and perceived inadequacies of the healthcare system. Improved communication between healthcare professionals and consumers regarding expectations of deprescribing and goals of care, as well as the provision of greater opportunities for consumer engagement in decision making were identified as avenues to improve the success of opioid deprescribing. For opioid deprescribing guidelines to be effective and achieve the intended goal of optimizing opioid use, consumers need to feel empowered to engage in opioid reduction or cessation. The findings of this study may facilitate a patient-centred approach for practitioners and guideline developers in creating recommendations and interventions to enable opioid deprescribing through targeting behavioral change.

Challenges of opioid deprescribing and factors to be considered in the development of opioid deprescribing guidelines: a qualitative analysis.

BACKGROUND: Chronic prescription opioid use is a major international public health issue associated with significant harms, including increased risk of hospitalisation, morbidity and death. Guidance for healthcare professionals on when and how to deprescribe or reduce opioids is required. A key step for guideline development for deprescribing pharmacotherapy is to understand the perspectives of stakeholders. The aim of this study was to explore the perspectives of healthcare professional stakeholders on the challenges associated with opioid deprescribing and factors to be considered in the development of opioid deprescribing guidelines. METHODS: A qualitative study was undertaken with a purposive sample of healthcare professionals including prescribers, pharmacists and nurses. An initial cohort of participants was identified at the 2018 Australian Deprescribing Network annual meeting and two focus groups were conducted (n=20). Individual interviews were conducted with a further 11 healthcare professionals. Focus groups and interviews were audio-recorded and transcribed verbatim. Data underwent inductive thematic analysis using a phenomenological perspective. RESULTS: Healthcare professionals viewed opioid deprescribing as a challenge and identified several key barriers to deprescribing in clinical practice. Medication, patient, prescriber and health system level challenges were identified. Participants requested evidence-based guidance on the withdrawal of opioid therapies and suggested that prospective opioid deprescribing guidelines require a multitarget, multimodal intervention strategy that addresses patient psychosocial factors and incorporates behavioural change techniques. CONCLUSION: Opioid deprescribing was perceived as a complex and challenging practice with continued prescribing the default behaviour. Evidence-based opioid deprescribing guidelines may be a valuable resource for clinicians to support clinical decision-making and reduce suboptimal opioid use.

Measuring the impact of system level strategies on psychotropic medicine use in aged care facilities: A scoping review.

BACKGROUND: Psychotropic medication use in the elderly population is associated with significant adverse effects. Robust evidence for the efficacy of psychotropic medications for behavioural and psychological symptoms of dementia is lacking. Despite national bodies, governments, and policymakers employing interventions to optimise the use of psychotropic medicines in this population, there is little research on their overall impact. OBJECTIVE: To identify and categorise system level strategies that have been implemented internationally and assess their impact on psychotropic medicine use in aged care facilities. METHODS: A systematic search of health-related databases including Medline, Embase, CINAHL, Web of Science and Scopus was performed. Empirical studies published in English prior to March 2019 that reported on the impact of system level strategies on psychotropic medicine use in aged care facilities were included. Studies were mapped to the RE-AIM (Reach, Effectiveness, Adoption, Implementation, Maintenance) framework to measure impact and were assessed for risk of bias. RESULTS: This review identified 36 studies which examined mandatory (n = 22) and non-mandatory (n = 14) system level strategies. The impact of strategies was highly dependent on implementation as well as organisational and patient factors. Mandatory strategies had greater evidence of impact on drug utilisation patterns compared to non-mandatory strategies which primarily focussed on adoption and implementation, rather than outcomes. The Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act 1987 (OBRA-87) in the United States of America had the greatest reach and implementation of the interventions examined, with an observed reduction in psychotropic medicine use post-implementation. There was no substantive body of evidence reporting on the sustainability of strategies or the influence of cost on outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Despite the implementation of system level strategies, psychotropic medicine use in aged care facilities remains problematic. There is a need for revised or novel system level strategies which consider sustainability, economic influences and patient outcomes in their design and implementation.