Consumer and multidisciplinary clinician experiences after implementation of the Drug Burden Index intervention bundle to facilitate deprescribing in older inpatients: A mixed method study

IF 2.1 4区 医学 Q3 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES
Nashwa Masnoon PhD, Sarita Lo MClinPharm, Melissa Baysari PhD, Alexandra Bennett PhD, Andrew J. McLachlan PhD, Fiona Blyth PhD, Mai Duong MPhil, Sarah N. Hilmer PhD
{"title":"Consumer and multidisciplinary clinician experiences after implementation of the Drug Burden Index intervention bundle to facilitate deprescribing in older inpatients: A mixed method study","authors":"Nashwa Masnoon PhD,&nbsp;Sarita Lo MClinPharm,&nbsp;Melissa Baysari PhD,&nbsp;Alexandra Bennett PhD,&nbsp;Andrew J. McLachlan PhD,&nbsp;Fiona Blyth PhD,&nbsp;Mai Duong MPhil,&nbsp;Sarah N. Hilmer PhD","doi":"10.1111/jep.14220","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Rationale</h3>\n \n <p>The Drug Burden Index (DBI) measures exposure to anticholinergic and sedative drugs, which are associated with harm in older adults. To facilitate deprescribing in older Australian inpatients, we piloted an intervention bundle integrating the DBI in Electronic Medical Records, clinician deprescribing guides, consumer information leaflets and a stewardship pharmacist.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Objectives</h3>\n \n <p>To understand (i) hospital clinician experiences of using the bundle and (ii) consumer (patient and carer) and General Practitioner (GP) experiences of in-hospital deprescribing, following bundle implementation.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Methods</h3>\n \n <p>Hospital clinicians from target services (General and Geriatric Medicine) at an Australian metropolitan tertiary-referral hospital, were invited to complete surveys, including the System Usability Scale (SUS), and interviews. Patients aged ≥75 years with high DBI (DBI ≥1) were admitted to target services, and their carers, received interview invitations. Consenting patients’ GPs received surveys. Qualitative data was thematically analysed. Hospital clinician interviews were mapped to the Human Organisation Technology-fit Framework. Patient interviews were mapped to an adaptation of the National Health Service Patient Experience Framework.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Results</h3>\n \n <p>Seventeen hospital clinicians (<i>n</i> = 15 medical, <i>n</i> = 2 pharmacists) and four GPs completed surveys. Eight hospital clinicians (<i>n</i> = 7 medical, <i>n</i> = 1 pharmacist), seven patients and two carers completed interviews. Hospital clinicians reported good usability (SUS score 71.5 ± 12.5). Most themes were around system use and user satisfaction. They reported the intervention was useful for medication review, identified challenges from pre-existing heavy workload and suggested further integration into workflows. Patients and carers reported themes around information, communication and education. Patients reported feeling better or no different post-deprescribing. Patients, carers and GPs described poor communication regarding in-hospital medication changes and their rationale.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Conclusions</h3>\n \n <p>The intervention was well accepted by hospital clinicians. The bundle requires further integration into workflows for sustainability and assessment of generalisability in other health services. Given patients, carers and GPs reported poor medication-related communication, future interventions may target this.</p>\n </section>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":15997,"journal":{"name":"Journal of evaluation in clinical practice","volume":"31 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of evaluation in clinical practice","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/jep.14220","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Rationale

The Drug Burden Index (DBI) measures exposure to anticholinergic and sedative drugs, which are associated with harm in older adults. To facilitate deprescribing in older Australian inpatients, we piloted an intervention bundle integrating the DBI in Electronic Medical Records, clinician deprescribing guides, consumer information leaflets and a stewardship pharmacist.

Objectives

To understand (i) hospital clinician experiences of using the bundle and (ii) consumer (patient and carer) and General Practitioner (GP) experiences of in-hospital deprescribing, following bundle implementation.

Methods

Hospital clinicians from target services (General and Geriatric Medicine) at an Australian metropolitan tertiary-referral hospital, were invited to complete surveys, including the System Usability Scale (SUS), and interviews. Patients aged ≥75 years with high DBI (DBI ≥1) were admitted to target services, and their carers, received interview invitations. Consenting patients’ GPs received surveys. Qualitative data was thematically analysed. Hospital clinician interviews were mapped to the Human Organisation Technology-fit Framework. Patient interviews were mapped to an adaptation of the National Health Service Patient Experience Framework.

Results

Seventeen hospital clinicians (n = 15 medical, n = 2 pharmacists) and four GPs completed surveys. Eight hospital clinicians (n = 7 medical, n = 1 pharmacist), seven patients and two carers completed interviews. Hospital clinicians reported good usability (SUS score 71.5 ± 12.5). Most themes were around system use and user satisfaction. They reported the intervention was useful for medication review, identified challenges from pre-existing heavy workload and suggested further integration into workflows. Patients and carers reported themes around information, communication and education. Patients reported feeling better or no different post-deprescribing. Patients, carers and GPs described poor communication regarding in-hospital medication changes and their rationale.

Conclusions

The intervention was well accepted by hospital clinicians. The bundle requires further integration into workflows for sustainability and assessment of generalisability in other health services. Given patients, carers and GPs reported poor medication-related communication, future interventions may target this.

消费者和多学科临床医生在实施 "药物负担指数 "干预捆绑包以促进老年住院患者减药后的体验:混合方法研究
理论依据 药物负担指数(DBI)用于衡量抗胆碱能药物和镇静药物的使用情况,这两种药物对老年人的伤害较大。为了促进澳大利亚老年住院患者的减药,我们在电子病历中整合了 DBI、临床医生减药指南、消费者信息宣传单和监管药剂师,并试行了一套干预措施。 目的 了解(i)医院临床医生使用该捆绑包的经验;(ii)捆绑包实施后,消费者(患者和护理者)和全科医生(GP)在院内去药方方面的经验。 方法 邀请一家澳大利亚大都市三级转诊医院目标服务部门(普通科和老年医学科)的医院临床医生完成调查,包括系统可用性量表(SUS)和访谈。年龄≥75 岁、DBI 高(DBI ≥1)、入住目标服务机构的患者及其护理人员收到了访谈邀请。征得同意的患者的全科医生也收到了调查问卷。对定性数据进行了专题分析。医院临床医生访谈被映射到 "人类组织技术匹配框架"。患者访谈则与国民健康服务患者体验框架相匹配。 结果 17 名医院临床医生(n = 15 名医务人员,n = 2 名药剂师)和 4 名全科医生完成了调查。8 名医院临床医生(n = 7 名医务人员,n = 1 名药剂师)、7 名患者和 2 名护理人员完成了访谈。医院临床医生表示系统可用性良好(SUS 评分 71.5 ± 12.5)。大多数主题围绕系统使用和用户满意度展开。他们表示该干预措施对药物审查很有用,但也指出了原有繁重工作量带来的挑战,并建议进一步整合到工作流程中。患者和护理人员报告的主题涉及信息、沟通和教育。患者表示在处方后感觉更好或没有什么不同。患者、护理人员和全科医生均表示,有关院内用药变更及其理由的沟通不畅。 结论 医院临床医生非常认可这项干预措施。该捆绑方案需要进一步整合到工作流程中,以实现可持续性,并评估在其他医疗服务中的通用性。鉴于患者、护理人员和全科医生均表示与用药相关的沟通不畅,未来的干预措施可能会针对这一问题。
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
CiteScore
4.80
自引率
4.20%
发文量
143
审稿时长
3-8 weeks
期刊介绍: The Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice aims to promote the evaluation and development of clinical practice across medicine, nursing and the allied health professions. All aspects of health services research and public health policy analysis and debate are of interest to the Journal whether studied from a population-based or individual patient-centred perspective. Of particular interest to the Journal are submissions on all aspects of clinical effectiveness and efficiency including evidence-based medicine, clinical practice guidelines, clinical decision making, clinical services organisation, implementation and delivery, health economic evaluation, health process and outcome measurement and new or improved methods (conceptual and statistical) for systematic inquiry into clinical practice. Papers may take a classical quantitative or qualitative approach to investigation (or may utilise both techniques) or may take the form of learned essays, structured/systematic reviews and critiques.
×
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