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":"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","authors":"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","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":"{\"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, Sarita Lo MClinPharm, Melissa Baysari PhD, Alexandra Bennett PhD, Andrew J. McLachlan PhD, Fiona Blyth PhD, Mai Duong MPhil, 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}","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}
Consumer and multidisciplinary clinician experiences after implementation of the Drug Burden Index intervention bundle to facilitate deprescribing in older inpatients: A mixed method study
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.
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.