'Do I actually even need all these tablets?' A qualitative study exploring deprescribing decision-making for people in receipt of palliative care and their family members.
Anna Robinson-Barella, Charlotte Lucy Richardson, Zana Bayley, Andy Husband, Rona Bojke, Andy Bojke, Rachel Quibell, Lisa Baker, Emma McDougall, Catherine Exley, Barbara Hanratty, Joanna Elverson, Jesse Jansen, Adam Todd
{"title":"'Do I actually even need all these tablets?' A qualitative study exploring deprescribing decision-making for people in receipt of palliative care and their family members.","authors":"Anna Robinson-Barella, Charlotte Lucy Richardson, Zana Bayley, Andy Husband, Rona Bojke, Andy Bojke, Rachel Quibell, Lisa Baker, Emma McDougall, Catherine Exley, Barbara Hanratty, Joanna Elverson, Jesse Jansen, Adam Todd","doi":"10.1177/02692163251327900","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>For people in receipt of palliative care, where polypharmacy is common and medication burden is high, there remains limited knowledge around the decision-making processes that underpin deprescribing; for example, recent deprescribing studies have focused on wider issues of identifying polypharmacy in palliative care contexts. However, little is known about the specific challenges of, and preferences towards, decision-making to support the deprescribing for people in receipt of palliative care.</p><p><strong>Aim: </strong>To explore decision-making processes that underpin deprescribing approaches, based on the experiences of people in receipt of palliative care, and their family member(s).</p><p><strong>Design: </strong>An explorative qualitative study involving in-person semi-structured interviews, analysed using reflexive thematic analysis.</p><p><strong>Setting/participants: </strong>Twenty-five semi-structured interviews were conducted with people in receipt of palliative care (<i>n</i> = 25), where 12 of these interviews were undertaken as dyads, with both the patient and a family member together. Interviews were undertaken across a range of settings, spanning: hospice outpatient day units (<i>n</i> = 11), hospice inpatient wards (<i>n</i> = 4), care home (<i>n</i> = 1) and patients' own homes (<i>n</i> = 9), and involved people with diverse diagnoses (including: cancer 52%, heart failure 20%, motor neurone disease 12%, pulmonary fibrosis 4% and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease 4%).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Two overarching themes were developed - the first reflected the need to address patient understanding by 'laying the foundations of deprescribing decision-making'. The second theme, 'having a voice in deprescribing decision-making', reflected desires to (pro)-actively involve patients and their family member(s) within these processes.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>There is a need to take a balanced, person-centred and shared approach to deprescribing decision-making for people receiving palliative care. Co-design strategies offer one approach to further explore this.</p>","PeriodicalId":19849,"journal":{"name":"Palliative Medicine","volume":" ","pages":"2692163251327900"},"PeriodicalIF":3.6000,"publicationDate":"2025-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Palliative Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/02692163251327900","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Background: For people in receipt of palliative care, where polypharmacy is common and medication burden is high, there remains limited knowledge around the decision-making processes that underpin deprescribing; for example, recent deprescribing studies have focused on wider issues of identifying polypharmacy in palliative care contexts. However, little is known about the specific challenges of, and preferences towards, decision-making to support the deprescribing for people in receipt of palliative care.
Aim: To explore decision-making processes that underpin deprescribing approaches, based on the experiences of people in receipt of palliative care, and their family member(s).
Design: An explorative qualitative study involving in-person semi-structured interviews, analysed using reflexive thematic analysis.
Setting/participants: Twenty-five semi-structured interviews were conducted with people in receipt of palliative care (n = 25), where 12 of these interviews were undertaken as dyads, with both the patient and a family member together. Interviews were undertaken across a range of settings, spanning: hospice outpatient day units (n = 11), hospice inpatient wards (n = 4), care home (n = 1) and patients' own homes (n = 9), and involved people with diverse diagnoses (including: cancer 52%, heart failure 20%, motor neurone disease 12%, pulmonary fibrosis 4% and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease 4%).
Results: Two overarching themes were developed - the first reflected the need to address patient understanding by 'laying the foundations of deprescribing decision-making'. The second theme, 'having a voice in deprescribing decision-making', reflected desires to (pro)-actively involve patients and their family member(s) within these processes.
Conclusion: There is a need to take a balanced, person-centred and shared approach to deprescribing decision-making for people receiving palliative care. Co-design strategies offer one approach to further explore this.
期刊介绍:
Palliative Medicine is a highly ranked, peer reviewed scholarly journal dedicated to improving knowledge and clinical practice in the palliative care of patients with far advanced disease. This outstanding journal features editorials, original papers, review articles, case reports, correspondence and book reviews. Essential reading for all members of the palliative care team. This journal is a member of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).