Search

Polypharmacy is a major challenge in healthcare for older people, and is associated with increased risks of adverse outcomes, such as delirium, falls, frailty, cognitive impairment and hospitalization. There is significant public and professional interest in the role of deprescribing in reducing medication-related harms in older people. We aim to provide a narrative review of 1) the safety and efficacy of deprescribing interventions, 2) the challenges and solutions of deprescribing research and implementation in clinical practice, and 3) the benefits of using Computerized Clinical Decision Support Systems (CCDSS) and Quality Indicators (QIs) in deprescribing research and practice. Deprescribing is an established management strategy to minimize polypharmacy and potentially inappropriate medications. There is limited clinical evidence for its efficacy on global and geriatric outcomes. Various challenges at patient, healthcare professional and healthcare system levels may impact on the success of deprescribing interventions in research and practice. Management strategies that target all levels of the healthcare system are required to overcome these challenges. Future studies may consider large multicenter prospective designs to establish the effects and sustainability of deprescribing interventions on clinical outcomes.

AIMS The Goal-directed Medication Review Electronic Decision Support System (G-MEDSS) assesses and reports a patient's goals, attitudes to deprescribing and Drug Burden Index (DBI) score, a measure of cumulative exposure to anticholinergic and sedative medications. This study evaluated the effect of implementing G-MEDSS in home medicines reviews (HMRs) on DBI exposure and clinical outcomes. METHODS A cluster-randomised clinical trial was performed across Australia. Accredited clinical pharmacists were randomised into intervention (G-MEDSS with usual care HMR) or comparison groups (usual care HMR alone). Patients were recruited by pharmacists from those routinely referred by general practitioners for HMR. The primary outcome was the proportion of patients with any reduction in DBI at 3-months follow-up. Secondary outcomes included change in DBI continuous score at 3-months, HMR recommendations to change DBI and clinical outcomes. RESULTS There were 201 patient participants at baseline (n = 88 intervention, n = 113 comparison), with 159 followed-up at 3-months (n = 63 intervention, n = 96 comparison). The proportion of patients with a reduction in DBI was not significantly different at 3-months (intervention 17%, comparison 11%; adjusted odds ratio 1.44, 95% confidence interval 0.56-3.80). Regarding secondary outcomes, there was no difference in change in DBI score at 3-months. However, the HMR report made recommendations to reduce DBI for a significantly greater proportion of patients in the intervention than in the comparison group (intervention 37%, comparison 14%; adjusted odds ratio 3.20, 95% confidence interval 1.50-6.90). No changes were observed in clinical outcomes. CONCLUSION Implementation of G-MEDSS within HMR did not reduce patients' DBI at 3 months compared with usual care HMR.

Background: Current information on the patterns of medication use in nursing home residents living with dementia is conflicting. Aim: The aim of this study was to investigate medication use and its associations with dementia diagnosis in Australian nursinghome residents. Methods: A cross-sectional study of 541 residents from 17 Australian nursing homes was performed. Results: Over 12 months, nursing home residents were prescribed a mean (±SD) of 14.5 ± 6.8 medications each. Approximately 95% of residents were prescribed medications for the nervous system, and 94% were prescribed medications for the alimentary tract and metabolism. After adjustment for potential confounders, those with dementia were less likely to be prescribed medications for the cardiovascular system (odds ratio (OR) 0.45, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.27–0.77, p = 0.0032) and respiratory system (OR 0.38,95% CI: 0.25–0.60, p < 0.0001). Further analysis of specific medications showed that residents with dementia were more likely to be prescribed risperidone (OR: 9.38, 95% CI: 4.01–21.94, p < 0.0001), buprenorphine (OR 3.37, 95% CI: 1.78–6.36, p = 0.0002) and trimethoprim (OR 1.78, 95% CI: 1.06–2.97, p = 0.0282), but less likely to be prescribed glyceryl trinitrate (OR 0.42, 95% CI: 0.19–0.94,p = 0.0340) and salbutamol (OR 0.34, 95% CI: 0.2–0.6, p = 0.0002) in addition to other specific medications. Conclusions: Increased awareness of possible undertreatment of cardiovascular and respiratory conditions, and possible overtreatment of urinary tract infection, in those living with dementia in nursing home settings may improve management of this vulnerable population. Refereed/Peer-reviewed

Refereed/Peer-reviewed Objectives: 1) To understand and investigate the experiences of accredited clinical pharmacists (ACP) using computerised clinical decision support systems (CCDSS) during medication reviews for older people, including those living with dementia; 2) To design, develop, validate, and evaluate a CCDSS that incorporates pharmacological and other deprescribing tools to aid person-centred management of high-risk medications in older adults living with and without dementia. Methods: This study consisted of three phases and was designed on scenario-based methodology: a) the development phase, which included an exploratory survey and prototype building; b) the validation phase, which included qualitative data collection and usability testing with ACPs, general practitioners (GPs) and carers for people living with dementia; and c) the evaluation phase, using mixed-methods analyses. Results: The exploratory survey found that ACPs required a flexible, and reliable CCDSS to support them with clinical decisions regarding high-risk medication use in older adults. The Goal-directed Medication review Electronic Decision Support System (G-MEDSS)© was developed and validated using quantitative and qualitative feedback received from ACPs, GPs and carers for people with dementia. The mean (SD) System Usability Scale score was 69.0 (12.9), which indicated fair-good usability. Discussion and conclusions: Involving end-users in the design process refined and improved the design of G-MEDSS, allowing for a person-centred and goal-directed delivery of pharmaceutical care. G-MEDSS allows healthcare practitioners conducting medication reviews for older adults living with and without dementia to tailor pharmaceutical care to meet their goals and preferences. Future studies may explore integration of G-MEDSS with prescribing or dispensing software.

A cohesive, national approach is needed to address inappropriate polypharmacy in older adults and promote deprescribing. We describe the dissemination of the Quality Use of Medicines to Optimise Ageing in Older Australians: Recommendations for a National Strategic Action Plan to Reduce Inappropriate Polypharmacy, and the initiatives taken to date that align with, and assist in operationalising this plan. Refereed/Peer-reviewed

Background Older people living in the community have a high prevalence of polypharmacy and are vulnerable to adverse drug events. Home Medicines Review (HMR) is a collaborative medication review service involving general practitioners (GPs), accredited clinical pharmacists (ACPs) and patients, which aims to prevent medication-related problems. This study aims to evaluate the implementation of a Computerised Clinical Decision Support System (CCDSS) called G-MEDSS© (Goal-directed Medication Review Electronic Decision Support System) in HMRs to deprescribe anticholinergic and sedative medications, and to assess the effect of deprescribing on clinical outcomes. Methods This study consists of 2 stages: Stage I – a two-arm parallel-group cluster-randomised clinical trial, and Stage II – process evaluation of the CCDSS intervention in HMR. Community-dwelling older adults living with and without dementia who are referred for HMR by their GP and recruited by ACPs will be included in this study. G-MEDSS is a CCDSS designed to provide clinical decision support for healthcare practitioners when completing a medication review, to tailor care to meet the patients’ goals and preferences. The G-MEDSS contains three tools: The Goals of Care Management Tool, The Drug Burden Index (DBI) Calculator©, and The revised Patients’ Attitudes Towards Deprescribing (rPATD) questionnaire. The G-MEDSS produces patient-specific deprescribing reports, to be included as part of the ACPs communication with the patient’s GP, and patient-specific reports for the patient (or carer). ACPs randomised to the intervention arm of the study will use G-MEDSS to create deprescribing reports for the referring GP and for their patient (or carer) when submitting the HMR report. ACPs in the comparison arm will provide the usual care HMR service (without the G-MEDSS). Outcomes The primary outcome is reduction in DBI exposure 3 months after HMR ± G-MEDSS intervention between comparison and intervention groups. The secondary outcomes include changes in clinical outcomes (physical and cognitive function, falls, institutionalisation, GP visits, medication adherence and mortality) 3-months after HMR. Discussion This study is expected to add to the evidence that the combination of CCDSS supporting medication review can improve prescribing and clinical outcomes in older adults. Trial registration The trial was registered on the Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry ACTRN12617000895381 on 19th June 2017.

Background Use of high-risk medications is common and associated with adverse effects in older adults, including those living with dementia. A Computerised Clinical Decision Support System (CCDSS) called G-MEDSS© (Goal-directed Medication Review Electronic Decision Support System) contains tools that identify medications with anticholinergic and sedative effects and align older adult's health and medication goals of care with medication management strategies. Objectives To describe the utility of a CCDSS called G-MEDSS in Home Medicines Review (HMR) by an accredited clinical pharmacist (ACP) using a mixed-methods process evaluation method. Methods A mixed-methods process evaluation was conducted as part of a nation-wide cluster-randomised clinical trial evaluating the effectiveness of implementing G-MEDSS in HMR. Data were collected from ACPs and HMR recipients (the patient) using a feedback survey (ACPs and HMR recipients) and one-on-one telephone interviews (HMR recipients). Quantitative and qualitative data were combined at the start of analysis. Content analysis of the qualitative data was conducted, and emerging categories were linked to quantitative data. Results Feedback surveys were completed by eight ACPs and 26 HMR recipients; 11 HMR recipients completed one-on-one telephone interviews. Overall, ACPs and HMR recipients who received the intervention reported a positive attitude towards the utility of G-MEDSS in HMR. ACPs reported that G-MEDSS enhanced their ability to make evidence-based recommendations about anticholinergic and sedative medications, and to better align HMR recommendations with HMR recipients’ goals of care. However, ACPs described that it was difficult to obtain goals of care from HMR recipients. HMR recipients gave mixed reports about the ACPs consultations: some HMR recipients reported that they were engaged in discussions about their views on medications, whilst other participants reported that discussions about their concerns towards medications and goals was limited. Conclusions This study suggests that a CCDSS, such as G-MEDSS, demonstrates good utility to assist ACPs to identify and assess anticholinergic and sedative medications. Given the mixed feedback from the ACPs on the different components of the G-MEDSS, further refinement of these tools and their use in combination in practice may be needed.

Anticholinergic medications are frequently used in older adults to manage a wide range of chronic diseases. Anticholinergic burden associated with the use of multiple medications with anticholinergic effects is cumulative within an individual, and older adults are particularly susceptible to the adverse effects of these medications. These include dry mouth resulting in poor oral health, constipation, urinary retention and confusion. Use of anticholinergic medications has been associated with impaired cognitive and physical function, increased risk of falls, vascular events and hospitalisation. Consideration of anticholinergic burden is an important component of medication management for older adults. Several measures have been developed and validated to quantify anticholinergic burden, such as the Anticholinergic Drug Scale, Anticholinergic Risk Scale and the Anticholinergic Cognitive Burden scale. However, the evidence for translation of these measures into clinical practice is limited. This narrative review provides a brief clinical overview of the pharmacology of anticholinergic medications in the context of older adults, summarises approaches to measure anticholinergic burden, reviews recent evidence of the clinical impact of anticholinergic medications and discusses deprescribing strategies to manage anticholinergic burden for older adults in clinical practice. Refereed/Peer-reviewed

Objective This study primarily aims to explore residential aged care facility (RACF) staff views on the utility of a computerised clinical decision support system (CCDSS) that incorporates validated goal-directed deprescribing tools and guides to identify residents' goals for medications. Methods A qualitative study was conducted in four RACFs. Semi-structured interviews or focus groups were conducted with 19 participants, representing various types of clinical and care staff. Results According to staff, the use of a CCDSS was useful as it facilitated resident (including people with dementia), and caregiver engagement to obtain comprehensive information about the residents' goals and medication concerns. Staff perceptions of the increased workload and that some residents and caregivers would have limited involvement in discussions were barriers to the adoption of a CCDSS. Conclusion Integration of a CCDSS into practice, accompanied with staff training and education, has the potential to improve goal-directed pharmaceutical care.

IntroductionPolypharmacy and potentially inappropriate medication use is common in older adults and is associated with adverse outcomes such as falls and hospitalisations.Methods and analysisThis study is a pharmacist-led medication optimisation initiative using an electronic tool (the Drug Burden Index (DBI) Calculator) in four hospital sites in the Canadian province of Nova Scotia. The study aims to enrol 160 participants between the preintervention and intervention groups. The Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Interventional Trials (SPIRIT 2013 checklist) was used to develop the protocol for this prospective interventional implementation study. A preintervention retrospective control cohort and a multiple case study analysis will also be used to assess the effect of intervention implementation. Statistical analysis will involve change in DBI scores and assessment of clinical outcomes, such as rehospitalisation and mortality using appropriate statistical tests including t-test, χ2, analysis of variance and unadjusted and adjusted regression methods.Ethics and disseminationEthics approval has been granted by the Nova Scotia Health Authority Research Ethics Board. The findings of this study will be published in peer-reviewed journals and presented at local, national and international conferences.Trial registration numberNCT03698487.

Background Psychotropic medications have been associated with many adverse outcomes in older people living in residential care. Home-like models of residential care may be preferable to traditional models of care and we hypothesized that this model may impact on the prevalence of psychotropic medications. The objectives were to: 1) examine associations between psychotropic medications and quality of life in older adults living in residential care facilities with a high prevalence of cognitive impairment and dementia and 2) determine if there was a difference in prevalence of psychotropic medications in facilities which provide a small group home-like model of residential care compared to a ‘standard model’ of care. Methods Participants included 541 residents from 17 residential aged care facilities in the Investigating Services Provided in the Residential Environment for Dementia (INSPIRED) study. Cross-sectional analyses were completed to examine the above objectives. Quality of life was measured with the dementia quality of life questionnaire (DEMQOL) and the EQ-5D-5L completed by the resident or a proxy. Results Overall, 70.8% (n = 380) of the population had been prescribed/dispensed at least one psychotropic medication in the 100 days prior to recruitment. An increased number of psychotropic medications was associated with lower quality of life according to DEMQOL-Proxy-Utility scores (β (SE): − 0.012 (0.006), p = 0.04) and EQ-5D-5L scores (− 0.024 (0.011), p = 0.03) after adjustment for resident-level and facility-level characteristics. Analysis of the individual classes of psychotropic medications showed antipsychotics were associated with lower DEMQOL-Proxy-Utility scores (− 0.030 (0.014), p = 0.03) and benzodiazepines were associated with lower EQ-5D-5L scores (− 0.059 (0.024), p = 0.01). Participants residing in facilities which had a home-like model of residential care were less likely to be prescribed psychotropic medications (OR (95% CI): 0.24 (0.12, 0.46), p

Background: Inappropriate polypharmacy may negatively impact the quality of life of residents in aged care facilities, but it remains unclear which medications may influence this reduced quality of life. Objective: The objective of this study was to examine whether the Drug Burden Index and potentially inappropriate medications were associated with quality of life in older adults living in residential care with a high prevalence of cognitive impairment and dementia. Methods: We conducted cross-sectional analyses of 541 individuals recruited from 17 residential aged care facilities in Australia in the Investigating Services Provided in the Residential Environment for Dementia (INSPIRED) study. Quality of life was measured using the EuroQol Five Dimensions Questionnaire (a measure of generic quality of life) and the Dementia Quality of Life Questionnaire completed by the participant or a proxy. Results: In the 100 days prior to recruitment, 83.1% of the participants received at least one anticholinergic or sedative medication included in the Drug Burden Index and 73.0% received at least one potentially inappropriate medication according to the Beers Criteria. Multi-level linear models showed there was a significant association between a higher Drug Burden Index and lower quality of life according to the EuroQol Five Dimensions Questionnaire [β (standard error): − 0.034 (0.012), p = 0.006] after adjustment for potential confounding factors. Increasing numbers of potentially inappropriate medications were also associated with lower EuroQol Five Dimensions Questionnaire scores [− 0.030 (0.010), p = 0.003] and Dementia Quality of Life Questionnaire-Self-Report-Utility scores [− 0.020 (0.009), p = 0.029]. Exposure to both Drug Burden Index-associated medications and potentially inappropriate medications was associated with lower Dementia Quality of Life Questionnaire-Self-Report-Utility scores [− 0.034 (0.017), p = 0.049] . Conclusion: Exposure to anticholinergic and sedative medications and potentially inappropriate medications occurred in over three-quarters of a population of older adults in residential care and was associated with a lower quality of life. Refereed/Peer-reviewed

Introduction: As with prescribing or continuing medications, deprescribing brings with it the potential for harm as well as benefit. Uncertainty and avoidance of harm has been reported as a barrier to deprescribing in practice and may contribute to continuation of inappropriate medications. Areas covered: This narrative review covers four main safety concerns/potential harms of deprescribing in older adults: adverse drug withdrawal events, return of medical condition(s), reversal of drug-drug interactions and damage to the doctor-patient relationship. These are discussed in relation to medications in general, with some examples of medication classes used to illustrate the potential safety concerns. The majority of these harms can be minimized or even prevented by using a patient-centered, structured deprescribing process with planning, tapering and close monitoring during, and after medication withdrawal. Expert opinion: More research is needed into the safety concerns of deprescribing, however, avenues exist during drug development and post-marketing surveillance to gain knowledge on this topic. Questions remain about when it is suitable to discontinue certain medications/medication classes and there is uncertainty about the harms and benefits of both medication continuation and discontinuation in complex older adults. Refereed/Peer-reviewed