Search

Objective: To describe the co-design process in a project that "evaluated how the key worker role can best support people living with dementia in the community setting.", Methods: People with dementia, care-partners, aged-care service experts, policymakers and academics utilised a co-design process to undertake a systematic literature review and a qualitative evaluation study., Results: The development of a successful co-design process that includes people living with dementia and their care-partners ("consumers") at all stages of the research process and addresses their individual needs., Conclusions: The co-design approach utilised in this project provided support, for consumers living in the community to be fully involved in the research design, conduct and plans for dissemination and implementation of the findings. Consequently, the research outcomes are based on solid evidence and consumer need. Additionally, a successful model for supporting consumers to facilitate their involvement in all aspects of the research process, was developed., (© 2019 The Authors. Australasian Journal on Ageing published by John Wiley & Sons Australia, Ltd on behalf of AJA Inc.)

Janet K Sluggett,1– 3 Choon Ean Ooi,1 Stephanie Gibson,1 Manya T Angley,4 Megan Corlis,3,5 Michelle E Hogan,3,5 Tessa Caporale,5 Georgina A Hughes,1,4 Jan Van Emden,3,5 J Simon Bell1,3,6 1Centre for Medicine Use and Safety, Faculty of Pharmacy and Pharmaceutical Sciences, Monash University, Parkville, Victoria, Australia; 2University of South Australia, UniSA Allied Health and Human Performance, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia; 3National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) Cognitive Decline Partnership Centre, Hornsby Ku-ring-gai Hospital, Hornsby, New South Wales, Australia; 4University of South Australia, UniSA Clinical and Health Sciences, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia; 5Helping Hand Aged Care, North Adelaide, South Australia, Australia; 6Department of Epidemiology and Preventive Medicine, School of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, Melbourne, Victoria, AustraliaCorrespondence: Janet K Sluggett Email janet.sluggett@unisa.edu.auPurpose: Being able to manage a complex medication regimen is key to older people continuing to live at home. This study determined the feasibility of a multi-component intervention to simplify medication regimens for people receiving community-based home care services.Patients and Methods: Research nurses recruited people receiving community-based home care services to participate in this non-randomized pilot and feasibility study (Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry ACTRN12618001130257). Participants received a one-off clinical pharmacist intervention comprising medication reconciliation, assessment of capacity to self-manage medications, and application of a structured 5-step tool to identify medication simplification opportunities. A mixed-methods feasibility assessment with an explanatory design was undertaken to assess recruitment, protocol adherence and stakeholder acceptability. Data from interviews with 12 stakeholders were thematically analyzed. Secondary outcome measures, including medication discrepancies, and changes in number of medication administration times per day, quality of life, medication adherence and health service utilization, were determined over a 4-month follow-up.Results: Twenty-five out of the target 50 participants were recruited. Initial recruitment was impacted by apparent uncertain role responsibilities in medication management, with some clients who declined to participate perceiving they would be unlikely to benefit or being reluctant to change regimens. However, with few exceptions, participants who received intervention did so with a high degree of protocol adherence and acceptability. Stakeholders valued the intervention and supported wider implementation. Discrepancies between the baseline medication history from the general medical practitioner and the pharmacist-compiled “best possible medication history” were identified for all participants’ regimens (median of 6 per participant), with one-third resolved at follow-up. Simplification was possible for 14 participants (56%) and implemented for 7 (50%) at follow-up. No significant changes in other secondary outcomes were observed.Conclusion: The intervention was delivered as planned, and valued by stakeholders. Recruitment barriers should be addressed before wider implementation.Keywords: aged care, medication management, community services, medication simplification, Australia

Esa YH Chen,1,2 J Simon Bell,1–3 Jenni Ilomaki,2,3 Claire Keen,1 Megan Corlis,2,4 Michelle Hogan,4 Jan Van Emden,2,4 Sarah N Hilmer,2,5 Janet K Sluggett1,2 1Centre for Medicine Use and Safety, Faculty of Pharmacy and Pharmaceutical Sciences, Monash University, Parkville, VIC, Australia; 2NHMRC Cognitive Decline Partnership Centre, Hornsby Ku-ring-gai Hospital, Hornsby, NSW, Australia; 3Department of Epidemiology and Preventive Medicine, School of Public Health and Preventative Medicine, Monash University, Melbourne, VIC, Australia; 4Helping Hand Aged Care, North Adelaide, SA, Australia; 5Kolling Institute, Faculty of Medicine and Health, The University of Sydney and Royal North Shore Hospital, St Leonards, NSW, AustraliaCorrespondence: Esa YH ChenCentre for Medicine Use and Safety, Faculty of Pharmacy and Pharmaceutical Sciences, Monash University, 381 Royal Parade, Parkville, VIC 3052, AustraliaTel +61 3 9903 9533Email Esa.Chen@monash.eduObjective: To explore variation in medication regimen complexity in residential aged care facilities (RACFs) according to resident age, length of stay, comorbidity, dementia severity, frailty, and dependence in activities of daily living (ADLs), and compare number of daily administration times and Medication Regimen Complexity Index (MRCI) as measures of regimen complexity.Methods: This study was a cross-sectional analysis of baseline data from the SImplification of Medications Prescribed to Long-tErm care Residents (SIMPLER) cluster-randomized controlled trial. The SIMPLER study recruited 242 residents with at least one medication charted for regular administration from 8 RACFs in South Australia. Comorbidity was assessed using the Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI). Dementia severity was assessed using the Dementia Severity Rating Scale. Frailty was assessed using the FRAIL-NH scale. Dependence in ADLs was assessed using the Katz ADL scale.Results: The median age of participants was 87 years (interquartile range 81–92). Over one-third of participants (n=86, 36%) had 5 or more daily medication administration times. The number of daily administration times and MRCI scores were positively correlated with resident length of stay (rs=0.19; 0.27), FRAIL-NH score (rs=0.23; 0.34) and dependence in ADLs (rs=−0.21; −0.33) (all p

Esa YH Chen,1,2 Janet K Sluggett,1,2 Jenni Ilomäki,1,3 Sarah N Hilmer,2,4 Megan Corlis,2,5 Leonie J Picton,1 Laura Dean,1 Christopher P Alderman,6 Nicholas Farinola,7 Joy Gailer,8 Jane Grigson,5 Andrew R Kellie,9 Peter JC Putsey,5 Solomon Yu,10 J Simon Bell1–3 1Centre for Medicine Use and Safety, Faculty of Pharmacy and Pharmaceutical Sciences, Monash University, Parkville, VIC, Australia; 2NHMRC Cognitive Decline Partnership Centre, Sydney Medical School – Northern, Hornsby Ku-ring-gai Hospital, Hornsby, NSW, Australia; 3Department of Epidemiology and Preventive Medicine, School of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, Melbourne, VIC, Australia; 4Kolling Institute, Sydney Medical School, The University of Sydney and Royal North Shore Hospital, St Leonards, NSW, Australia; 5Helping Hand Aged Care, North Adelaide, SA, Australia; 6School of Pharmacy and Medical Sciences, University of South Australia, Adelaide, SA, Australia; 7Department of Clinical Pharmacology, Royal Adelaide Hospital, North Terrace, Adelaide, SA, Australia; 8Drug and Therapeutics Information Service, Repatriation General Hospital, Daw Park, SA, Australia; 9East Adelaide Healthcare, Newton, SA, Australia; 10Aged and Extended Care Services, The Queen Elizabeth Hospital, Woodville South, SA, Australia Background: Residents of aged care facilities use increasingly complex medication regimens. Reducing unnecessary medication regimen complexity (eg, by consolidating the number of administration times or using alternative formulations) may benefit residents and staff. Objective: To develop and validate an implicit tool to facilitate medication regimen simplification in aged care facilities. Method: A purposively selected multidisciplinary expert panel used modified nominal group technique to identify and prioritize factors important in determining whether a medication regimen can be simplified. The five prioritized factors were formulated as questions, pilot-tested using non-identifiable medication charts and refined by panel members. The final tool was validated by two clinical pharmacists who independently applied the tool to a random sample of 50 residents of aged care facilities to identify opportunities for medication regimen simplification. Inter-rater agreement was calculated using Cohen’s kappa.Results: The Medication Regimen Simplification Guide for Residential Aged CarE (MRS GRACE) was developed as an implicit tool comprising of five questions about 1) the resident; 2) regulatory and safety requirements; 3) drug interactions; 4) formulation; and 5) facility and follow-up considerations. Using MRS GRACE, two pharmacists independently simplified medication regimens for 29/50 and 30/50 residents (Cohen’s kappa=0.38, 95% CI 0.12–0.64), respectively. Simplification was possible for all residents with five or more administration times. Changing an administration time comprised 75% of the two pharmacists’ recommendations.Conclusions: Using MRS GRACE, two clinical pharmacists independently simplified over half of residents’ medication regimens with fair agreement. MRS GRACE is a promising new tool to guide medication regimen simplification in aged care. Keywords: medication therapy management, long-term care, geriatrics, drug administration, medication regimen complexity