Search

Background: Whether or not to prescribe an antibiotic is a key issue for clinicians treating respiratory tract infection (RTI) in the community. Measurement of C-reactive protein (CRP) in community pharmacy may help to differentiate viral and self-limiting infections from more serious bacterial infections. Objective: To pilot POC CRP testing for suspected RTI within community pharmacy in Northern Ireland (NI). Methods: POC CRP testing was piloted in 17 community pharmacies linked to 9 general practitioner (GP) practices in NI. The service was available to adults presenting to their community pharmacy with signs and symptoms of RTI. The pilot (between October 2019 and March 2020) was stopped early due to Coronavirus-19 (COVID-19). Results: During the pilot period, 328 patients from 9 GP practices completed a consultation. The majority (60%) were referred to the pharmacy from their GP and presented with <3 symptoms (55%) which had a duration of up to 1 week (36%). Most patients (72%) had a CRP result of <20mg/L. A larger proportion of patients with a CRP test result between 20mg/L and 100mg/L and >100mg/L, were referred to the GP when compared to patients with a CRP test result of <20mg/L. Antimicrobial prescribing rates were studied in a subgroup (n=30) from 1 practice. Whilst the majority (22/30; 73%) had a CRP test result of <20mg/L, 50%, (15/30) of patients had contact with the GP in relation to their acute cough and 43% (13/30) had an antibiotic prescribed within 5 days. The stakeholder and patient survey reported positive experiences. Conclusion: This pilot was successful in introducing POC CRP testing in keeping with National Institute of Health and Care Excellence (NICE) recommendations for the assessment of non-pneumonic lower RTIs and both stakeholders and patients reported positive experiences. A larger proportion of patients with a possible or likely bacterial infection as measured by CRP were referred to the GP, compared to patients with a normal CRP test

BACKGROUND: Multimorbidity and its associated polypharmacy contribute to an increase in adverse drug events, hospitalizations, and healthcare spending. This study aimed to address: what exists regarding polypharmacy management in the European Union (EU); why programs were, or were not, developed; and, how identified initiatives were developed, implemented, and sustained. METHODS: Change management principles (Kotter) and normalization process theory (NPT) informed data collection and analysis. Nine case studies were conducted in eight EU countries: Germany (Lower Saxony), Greece, Italy (Campania), Poland, Portugal, Spain (Catalonia), Sweden (Uppsala), and the United Kingdom (Northern Ireland and Scotland). The workflow included a review of country/region specific polypharmacy policies, key informant interviews with stakeholders involved in policy development and implementation and, focus groups of clinicians and managers. Data were analyzed using thematic analysis of individual cases and framework analysis across cases. RESULTS: Polypharmacy initiatives were identified in five regions (Catalonia, Lower Saxony, Northern Ireland, Scotland, and Uppsala) and included all care settings. There was agreement, even in cases without initiatives, that polypharmacy is a significant issue to address. Common themes regarding the development and implementation of polypharmacy management initiatives were: locally adapted solutions, organizational culture supporting innovation and teamwork, adequate workforce training, multidisciplinary teams, changes in workflow, redefinition of roles and responsibilities of professionals, policies and legislation supporting the initiative, and data management and information and communication systems to assist development and implementation. Depending on the setting, these were considered either facilitators or barriers to implementation. CONCLUSION: Within the studied EU countries, polypharmacy management was not widely addressed. These results, Jennifer McIntosh and Albert Alonso contributed equally to this work.

Background Inappropriate use of multiple medicines (inappropriate polypharmacy) is a major challenge in older people with consequences of increased prevalence and severity of adverse drug reactions and interactions, and reduced medicines adherence. The aim of this study was to determine the levels of consensus amongst key stakeholders in the European Union (EU) in relation to aspects of the management of polypharmacy in older people. Methods Forty-six statements were developed on aspects of healthcare structures, processes and desired outcomes, with consensus defined at >= 80% agreement. Panel members were strategists (e.g. directors, leading clinicians and commissioners) from each of the 28 EU member states, with a target recruitment of five per member state. Three Delphi rounds were conducted via email, with panel members being provided with summative results and collated, anonymised comments at the commencement of Rounds 2 and 3. Results Ninety panel members were recruited (64.3% of target), with high participation levels throughout the three Delphi rounds (91.1%, 83.3%, 72.2%). During Round 1, consensus was obtained for 27/46 statements (58.7%), with an additional two statements in Round 2 and none in Round 3. Consensus was obtained for statements relating to: potential gain arising from polypharmacy management (3/4 statements); strategic development (7/7); change management (5/7) indicator measures (4/6); legislation (0/3); awareness raising (5/5); polypharmacy reviews (5/7); and EU vision (0/7). Analysis of free text comments indicated that the vision statements were too ambitious and not achievable by the specified timeframe of 2025. Conclusion Consensus was obtained amongst key EU strategists around many aspects of polypharmacy management in older people. Notably, no consensus was achieved in relation to statements relating to the need to alter legislation in areas of healthcare delivery, remuneration and practitioner scope of practice. While the vision f