66 Preventing overtreatment in older age by prioritising medicines

K. Weir, C. Bonner, V. Naganathan, K. McCaffery, A. McLachlan, S. Carter, L. Trevena, Jim Colvin, D. Rigby, J. Jansen
{"title":"66 Preventing overtreatment in older age by prioritising medicines","authors":"K. Weir, C. Bonner, V. Naganathan, K. McCaffery, A. McLachlan, S. Carter, L. Trevena, Jim Colvin, D. Rigby, J. Jansen","doi":"10.1136/BMJEBM-2018-111070.66","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Objectives Reducing inappropriate and harmful medicines in older people with comorbidity is a major public health issue. GPs and pharmacists play a pivotal role in optimising medicines and reducing treatment burden. This includes reviewing medicines to confirm they are (still) needed/safe and align with patient goals. Medication reviews conducted by pharmacists aim to resolve problems associated with polypharmacy and involve recommendations to the patient’s GP on how to do this. However, there are barriers to uptake and limited evidence underpinning medication reviews. Our study aimed to explore GP and pharmacists’ views on the role of patient goals and preferences in medication reviews and deprescribing. Method Semi-structured interviews were conducted with GPs (n=25), pharmacists (n=11) who refer to and conduct medication reviews; with varying background characteristics and experience levels. Transcribed audio-recordings of the interviews were coded using Framework Analysis. Results Most participants recognised the importance of getting a sense of patient’s goals/preferences in relation to medicines. However, often these discussions were initiated by the patient, some participants tended to interpret goals only in terms of clinical outcomes (i.e. therapeutic index) and goals were not routinely discussed. Overall, participants considered medication reviews useful for preventing medication errors, reducing treatment burden and to support deprescribing. However, some GPs expressed doubts about the effectiveness of reviews, suggesting they may be limited in what they can achieve as only one aspect of patient care. Important barriers were highlighted related to patients (resistance to the review, misunderstanding about the aim); pharmacists (importance of patient goals/preferences being reflected in recommendations, reviews targeted to high-need patients with recommendations actioned by GPs for patients to benefit) and GPs (limited information from the GP at referral, limited follow-up afterwards and recommendations not being actioned). Conclusions Participants reported a range of benefits for medication reviews in terms of optimising care and reducing medication burden for older people. However, we identified limitations importantly goals and preferences may not be routinely incorporated in decision-making about medicines and some GPs are doubtful as to the clinical benefit of medication reviews. This may influence barriers reported by participants such as patient resistance to reviews, misunderstanding of the purpose and limited follow up afterwards. This study highlights the challenges GPs and pharmacists face in collaboratively managing polypharmacy and providing care that aligns with patient goals and preferences.","PeriodicalId":298595,"journal":{"name":"BMJ Evidenced-Based Medicine","volume":"687 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2018-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"BMJ Evidenced-Based Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1136/BMJEBM-2018-111070.66","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objectives Reducing inappropriate and harmful medicines in older people with comorbidity is a major public health issue. GPs and pharmacists play a pivotal role in optimising medicines and reducing treatment burden. This includes reviewing medicines to confirm they are (still) needed/safe and align with patient goals. Medication reviews conducted by pharmacists aim to resolve problems associated with polypharmacy and involve recommendations to the patient’s GP on how to do this. However, there are barriers to uptake and limited evidence underpinning medication reviews. Our study aimed to explore GP and pharmacists’ views on the role of patient goals and preferences in medication reviews and deprescribing. Method Semi-structured interviews were conducted with GPs (n=25), pharmacists (n=11) who refer to and conduct medication reviews; with varying background characteristics and experience levels. Transcribed audio-recordings of the interviews were coded using Framework Analysis. Results Most participants recognised the importance of getting a sense of patient’s goals/preferences in relation to medicines. However, often these discussions were initiated by the patient, some participants tended to interpret goals only in terms of clinical outcomes (i.e. therapeutic index) and goals were not routinely discussed. Overall, participants considered medication reviews useful for preventing medication errors, reducing treatment burden and to support deprescribing. However, some GPs expressed doubts about the effectiveness of reviews, suggesting they may be limited in what they can achieve as only one aspect of patient care. Important barriers were highlighted related to patients (resistance to the review, misunderstanding about the aim); pharmacists (importance of patient goals/preferences being reflected in recommendations, reviews targeted to high-need patients with recommendations actioned by GPs for patients to benefit) and GPs (limited information from the GP at referral, limited follow-up afterwards and recommendations not being actioned). Conclusions Participants reported a range of benefits for medication reviews in terms of optimising care and reducing medication burden for older people. However, we identified limitations importantly goals and preferences may not be routinely incorporated in decision-making about medicines and some GPs are doubtful as to the clinical benefit of medication reviews. This may influence barriers reported by participants such as patient resistance to reviews, misunderstanding of the purpose and limited follow up afterwards. This study highlights the challenges GPs and pharmacists face in collaboratively managing polypharmacy and providing care that aligns with patient goals and preferences.
66 .通过优先使用药物预防老年过度治疗
减少有合并症的老年人使用不适当和有害药物是一个重大的公共卫生问题。全科医生和药剂师在优化药物和减轻治疗负担方面发挥着关键作用。这包括审查药物,以确认它们(仍然)需要/安全,并与患者目标保持一致。药剂师进行的药物审查旨在解决与综合用药相关的问题,并就如何做到这一点向患者的全科医生提出建议。然而,接受药物审查存在障碍,而且支持药物审查的证据有限。本研究旨在探讨全科医生和药剂师对患者目标和偏好在药物评价和开处方中的作用的看法。方法采用半结构化访谈法,对进行药物评价的全科医生(n=25)、药师(n=11)进行访谈;具有不同的背景特征和经验水平。使用框架分析对采访录音进行编码。结果大多数参与者认识到了解患者对药物的目标/偏好的重要性。然而,这些讨论通常是由患者发起的,一些参与者倾向于仅从临床结果(即治疗指数)方面解释目标,并且目标没有常规讨论。总的来说,参与者认为药物审查有助于预防药物错误,减轻治疗负担和支持处方的减少。然而,一些全科医生对审查的有效性表示怀疑,他们认为,作为病人护理的一个方面,审查可能会受到限制。强调了与患者相关的重要障碍(对综述的抵制、对目的的误解);药剂师(患者目标/偏好的重要性反映在建议中,针对高需求患者的评论,由全科医生为患者提供的建议使患者受益)和全科医生(转诊时全科医生提供的信息有限,之后的随访有限,建议未被采取行动)。结论:参与者报告了药物评价在优化护理和减轻老年人药物负担方面的一系列益处。然而,我们发现了一些限制,重要的目标和偏好可能不会常规地纳入药物决策,一些全科医生对药物评价的临床益处持怀疑态度。这可能会影响参与者报告的障碍,如患者对审查的抵制、对目的的误解以及事后随访有限。本研究强调了全科医生和药剂师在合作管理综合药房和提供符合患者目标和偏好的护理方面所面临的挑战。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信