Search

Background: Despite being cornerstone medications for managing gastrointestinal disorders, proton pump inhibitors (PPI) have raised concerns due to inappropriate prescribing and overutilization, their potential side effects, and interactions with other medications. General practitioners (GPs) provide long-term patient follow-up and are targets to promote PPI deprescribing to reach the widest possible population. GPs practicing in rural settings encounter unique challenges as their numbers dwindle and their workload increases. Hence, targeted educational interventions are crucial to promote appropriate prescribing practices in such underserved areas. Methods: We developed a continuing medical education (CME) program focused on PPI deprescribing for GPs in rural settings. The program comprised of an interactive training session featuring clinical cases, an open discussion, and distribution of educational materials. We assessed the program's effectiveness using a two-level Kirkpatrick model, evaluating participant satisfaction and knowledge levels through pre- and post-course questionnaires. Results: Thirty-three GPs participated, with 61.9% working in semi-rural and 38.1% in rural areas (21 responded to the 1st questionnaire, 14 to the 2nd). Median medical experience was 6 years, with 61.9% serving as internship supervisors. Despite 95.2% acknowledging PPI overprescription, none had previously participated in dedicated PPI CME programs. The open discussion session provided valuable insights into various topics related to PPI use and gastrointestinal health. Participants expressed high satisfaction with the program (average rating of 9.1/10) and 92.9% reported changes in practice, including increased awareness of inappropriate PPI prescriptions. Indeed, 92.9% of GPs identified inappropriate PPI use following the course. 57.1% of participants utilized the provided educational materials. The main practice changes observed included an increased reassessment rate of PPI indications (71.4% at each renewal after vs. 19% before, 28.6% non-systematically after vs. 66.8% before, 0% rarely after vs. 14.3% before; p = 0.006), the necessity for more than one consultation to deprescribe (64.3% after vs. 23.8% before; p = 0.021), systematic utilization of gradual cessation of PPI (100% vs. 61.9%; p = 0.039) and more frequent use of additional medication (92.9% vs. 57.1%; p = 0.022), primarily antiacids (92.3%). Conclusions: Our study underscores the effectiveness of targeted CME programs in promoting appropriate prescribing practices and enhancing knowledge among GPs in rural settings. Despite the challenges encountered in deprescribing PPI, the program facilitated proactive approaches in managing treatment discontinuation failures. Tailored educational interventions are essential for mitigating medication prescribing challenges and improving patient outcomes in rural primary care settings. Trial registrations: Not applicable. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: According to § 27 and § 87 1b of the German Social Code, Book V, general outpatient palliative care (GOPC) aims to promote, maintain, and improve the quality of life and self-determination of seriously ill people. It should enable them to live in dignity until death in their preferred environment. Instead of a curative approach GOPC treatment focuses on the multiprofessional objective of alleviating symptoms and suffering on a case-by-case basis using medication or other measures, as well as the management of an individual treatment plan. The aim of this study was therefore to investigate to what extent medication differs from 12 months prior GOPC treatment within 12 months following GOPC treatment. Methods: A retrospective database cross sectional study based on the IQVIA Disease Analyzer (DA) was performed, including adult patients with cancer diagnosis and at least one documentation of palliative support between January 1st, 2018 and December 31st, 2021, in 805 general practices (GP). Results: The results of this study show, that in the context of general general outpatient palliative care, there is a significant increase in the prescription of opioids (18.3% vs. 37.7%), sedatives (7.8% vs. 16.2%) and antiemetics (5.3% vs. 9.7%), as well as a significant reduction in other medications such as statins (21.4% vs. 11.5%), proton pump inhibitors (PPI) (41.2% vs. 35.3%), or antihypertensives (57.5% vs. 46.6%). Conclusions: Our results support the role of GOPC as an important element in improving pharmacological symptom control and deprescription to improve quality of life of patients at the end of their life. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: There is a high prevalence of potentially inappropriate prescriptions in primary care. This is associated with more frequent adverse events, lower quality of life and more frequent visits to hospital accident & emergency departments. The aim of the present study is to summarise available evidence on the effectiveness of deprescription interventions in primary care, and to describe the barriers and enablers of the process from the point of view of patients and healthcare professionals. Methods: We designed an umbrella review which includes nine systematic reviews. More than 50% of included studies were performed with adults in primary care. Two reviewers independently performed data extraction and analysis. Results: In considering studies of the effectiveness of interventions, it can be observed that the educational component of deprescription procedures is a key factor, whilst procedures tailored towards the patient's situation offer better results. With regards to studies involving healthcare professionals, the main explored areas were the balance between risks and benefits, and the need to improve communication with patients as well as other colleagues involved in patient care. Amongst the identified barriers we found lack of time, inability to access all information, being stuck in a routine, resistance to change and a lack of willingness to question the prescription decisions made by healthcare colleagues. With regards to patients, it is clear that they have worries and doubts. In order to overcome these issues, a good relationship with healthcare professionals and receipt of their support is required during the process. Conclusions: Optimizing medication through targeted deprescribing is an important part of managing chronic conditions, avoiding adverse effects and improving outcomes. The majority of deprescription interventions in primary care are effective. Good communication between healthcare professionals is a key element for success in the deprescription process. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: In the last decade, there is an increasing focus on detecting and compiling lists of low-value nursing procedures. However, less is known about effective de-implementation strategies for these procedures. Therefore, the aim of this systematic review was to summarize the evidence of effective strategies to de-implement low-value nursing procedures.Methods: PubMed, Embase, Emcare, CINAHL, PsycINFO, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Web of Science, and Google Scholar were searched till January 2020. Additionally, reference lists and citations of the included studies were searched. Studies were included that described de-implementation of low-value nursing procedures, i.e., procedures, test, or drug orders by nurses or nurse practitioners. PRISMA guideline was followed, and the 'Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care' (EPOC) taxonomy was used to categorize de-implementation strategies. A meta-analysis was performed for the volume of low-value nursing procedures in controlled studies, and Mantel-Haenszel risk ratios (95% CI) were calculated using a random effects model.Results: Twenty-seven studies were included in this review. Studies used a (cluster) randomized design (n = 10), controlled before-after design (n = 5), and an uncontrolled before-after design (n = 12). Low-value nursing procedures performed by nurses and/or nurse specialists that were found in this study were restraint use (n = 20), inappropriate antibiotic prescribing (n = 3), indwelling or unnecessary urinary catheters use (n = 2), ordering unnecessary liver function tests (n = 1), and unnecessary antipsychotic prescribing (n = 1). Fourteen studies showed a significant reduction in low-value nursing procedures. Thirteen of these 14 studies included an educational component within their de-implementation strategy. Twelve controlled studies were included in the meta-analysis. Subgroup analyses for study design showed no statistically significant subgroup effect for the volume of low-value nursing procedures (p = 0.20).Conclusions: The majority of the studies with a positive significant effect used a de-implementation strategy with an educational component. Unfortunately, no conclusions can be drawn about which strategy is most effective for reducing low-value nursing care due to a high level of heterogeneity and a lack of studies. We recommend that future studies better report the effects of de-implementation strategies and perform a process evaluation to determine to which extent the strategy has been used.Trial Registration: The review is registered in Prospero (CRD42018105100). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Previous observational studies and clinical trials have shown that cholinesterase inhibitors (with or without memantine) provide benefit for patients with mild-to-moderate Alzheimer's disease. However, the impact of treatment continuation after progression to severe disease is unknown. The main aim of this study is to evaluate the effect and safety of continuing treatment with ChEIs (with or without memantine) for patients with severe dementia.Methods: This randomized, pragmatic, open-label clinical trial with blinded evaluators will evaluate the efficacy of continuing drug treatment in patients with advanced dementia. A total of 302 community-dwelling patients with severe dementia, Alzheimer's disease, with or without a coexisting diagnosis of vascular dementia, and a score of 10 or less on the Mini-Mental State Examination who received previous treatment with a cholinesterase inhibitor (with or without memantine) for at least 3 months, will be randomized to continue or discontinue drug treatment. Follow-up will be 12 months or until the primary endpoint is achieved. The primary endpoint is entry into institutional care and progression of disability, defined as a loss of 2 of 4 basic functions, or 6 of 11 instrumental functions, according to the Bristol Activities of Daily Living Scale at 12 months. The secondary outcomes are patient changes in functional and cognitive state, quality of life, and caregiver burden.Discussion: We expect that the results of our study will allow to identify if there is clinical relevant impact for patients and caregivers between maintaining or halting pharmacological treatment.Trial Registration: The study was prospectively registered in the REec (2017-000042-22) on May 11 2017 and ID ISRCTN12134230 on February 25 2019. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]