应用共同设计的药物计划对老年人进行更安全的药物治疗:可行性研究。

IF 1.6 Q3 MEDICINE, RESEARCH & EXPERIMENTAL
Malin Holmqvist, Axel Ros, Johan Thor, Linda Johansson
{"title":"应用共同设计的药物计划对老年人进行更安全的药物治疗:可行性研究。","authors":"Malin Holmqvist, Axel Ros, Johan Thor, Linda Johansson","doi":"10.1186/s40814-025-01661-1","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>To promote patient safety, international guidelines highlight the importance of a joint plan for continued treatment in older persons. Accordingly, in a co-design initiative involving older persons and healthcare professionals, a medication plan was developed. This study aimed to assess the feasibility of applying the medication plan for older persons in primary care. The objectives were to examine the feasibility of the medication plan in clinical practice and to examine the feasibility of methods that could be used to study a broader implementation.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A prospective study design, using both qualitative and quantitative methods, was employed. During appointments at primary care centres, physicians (n = 6), persons aged 75 or older (n = 21), and, when applicable, their next of kin (n = 2) collaboratively agreed on a medication plan, which was documented in the electronic health record. Over a 3-month follow-up period, data regarding the feasibility of the medication plan (usability and fidelity) and the feasibility of the research methods (recruitment and retention rates, data collection, and outcome measures) were collected.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Usability assessed by the System Usability Scale scored a median of 51.3 out of 100 for physicians. The participants' experiences of the medication plan's usability addressed functionalities, individualisation for relevance, resources, and a de-prioritised medication plan. Fidelity was assessed based on 8 out of 15 older persons reporting that they had received a medication plan, and 59% of all prescribed medications had documented goals and/or comments. The recruitment rate was 75% for physicians and 70% for older persons. There were no changes in polypharmacy and no contact with healthcare due to suspected adverse drug events. The participants' perceptions of the medication plan's ability to promote patient safety addressed awareness and information, challenges beyond the medication plan, and patient involvement.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The implementation of the co-designed medication plan encountered challenges related to usability and fidelity, requiring collaborative refinements of the prototype. Additional difficulties arose from using a low-fidelity prototype in clinical practice. Our results emphasise the strength of combining qualitative and quantitative methods to capture participants' perspectives on the medication plan's ability to promote patient safety. Before conducting a larger study, the evaluation methods require further refinement.</p><p><strong>Trial registration: </strong>ClinicalTrials.gov NCT06016140 (retrospectively registered).</p>","PeriodicalId":20176,"journal":{"name":"Pilot and Feasibility Studies","volume":"11 1","pages":"92"},"PeriodicalIF":1.6000,"publicationDate":"2025-07-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12224353/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Applying a co-designed medication plan for safer medication treatment in older persons: a feasibility study.\",\"authors\":\"Malin Holmqvist, Axel Ros, Johan Thor, Linda Johansson\",\"doi\":\"10.1186/s40814-025-01661-1\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>To promote patient safety, international guidelines highlight the importance of a joint plan for continued treatment in older persons. Accordingly, in a co-design initiative involving older persons and healthcare professionals, a medication plan was developed. This study aimed to assess the feasibility of applying the medication plan for older persons in primary care. The objectives were to examine the feasibility of the medication plan in clinical practice and to examine the feasibility of methods that could be used to study a broader implementation.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A prospective study design, using both qualitative and quantitative methods, was employed. During appointments at primary care centres, physicians (n = 6), persons aged 75 or older (n = 21), and, when applicable, their next of kin (n = 2) collaboratively agreed on a medication plan, which was documented in the electronic health record. Over a 3-month follow-up period, data regarding the feasibility of the medication plan (usability and fidelity) and the feasibility of the research methods (recruitment and retention rates, data collection, and outcome measures) were collected.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Usability assessed by the System Usability Scale scored a median of 51.3 out of 100 for physicians. The participants' experiences of the medication plan's usability addressed functionalities, individualisation for relevance, resources, and a de-prioritised medication plan. Fidelity was assessed based on 8 out of 15 older persons reporting that they had received a medication plan, and 59% of all prescribed medications had documented goals and/or comments. The recruitment rate was 75% for physicians and 70% for older persons. There were no changes in polypharmacy and no contact with healthcare due to suspected adverse drug events. The participants' perceptions of the medication plan's ability to promote patient safety addressed awareness and information, challenges beyond the medication plan, and patient involvement.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The implementation of the co-designed medication plan encountered challenges related to usability and fidelity, requiring collaborative refinements of the prototype. Additional difficulties arose from using a low-fidelity prototype in clinical practice. Our results emphasise the strength of combining qualitative and quantitative methods to capture participants' perspectives on the medication plan's ability to promote patient safety. Before conducting a larger study, the evaluation methods require further refinement.</p><p><strong>Trial registration: </strong>ClinicalTrials.gov NCT06016140 (retrospectively registered).</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":20176,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Pilot and Feasibility Studies\",\"volume\":\"11 1\",\"pages\":\"92\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-07-03\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12224353/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Pilot and Feasibility Studies\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1186/s40814-025-01661-1\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"MEDICINE, RESEARCH & EXPERIMENTAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Pilot and Feasibility Studies","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s40814-025-01661-1","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"MEDICINE, RESEARCH & EXPERIMENTAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:为了促进患者安全,国际指南强调了老年人继续治疗联合计划的重要性。因此,在一项涉及老年人和保健专业人员的共同设计倡议中,制定了一项药物计划。本研究的目的是评估在初级保健中应用老年人用药计划的可行性。目的是检查药物计划在临床实践中的可行性,并检查可用于研究更广泛实施的方法的可行性。方法:采用定性和定量相结合的前瞻性研究设计。在初级保健中心预约期间,医生(n = 6)、75岁或以上的人(n = 21)以及(如果适用)他们的近亲(n = 2)共同商定了一项药物计划,并将其记录在电子健康记录中。在3个月的随访期间,收集了有关药物计划可行性(可用性和保真度)和研究方法可行性(招募和保留率、数据收集和结果测量)的数据。结果:通过系统可用性量表评估的可用性对医生的得分中位数为51.3分。参与者对药物计划可用性的体验涉及功能、相关性个性化、资源和非优先级药物计划。保真度的评估基于15名老年人中有8人报告他们接受了药物计划,59%的处方药有记录的目标和/或评论。医生的招聘率为75%,老年人的招聘率为70%。多药治疗没有变化,也没有因疑似药物不良事件而与医疗机构接触。参与者对药物计划促进患者安全能力的看法涉及意识和信息、药物计划之外的挑战和患者参与。结论:共同设计的用药计划的实施遇到了与可用性和保真度相关的挑战,需要对原型进行协作改进。在临床实践中使用低保真度的原型产生了额外的困难。我们的研究结果强调了定性和定量方法相结合的优势,以捕捉参与者对药物计划促进患者安全能力的看法。在进行更大规模的研究之前,评估方法需要进一步完善。试验注册:ClinicalTrials.gov NCT06016140(回顾性注册)。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Applying a co-designed medication plan for safer medication treatment in older persons: a feasibility study.

Background: To promote patient safety, international guidelines highlight the importance of a joint plan for continued treatment in older persons. Accordingly, in a co-design initiative involving older persons and healthcare professionals, a medication plan was developed. This study aimed to assess the feasibility of applying the medication plan for older persons in primary care. The objectives were to examine the feasibility of the medication plan in clinical practice and to examine the feasibility of methods that could be used to study a broader implementation.

Methods: A prospective study design, using both qualitative and quantitative methods, was employed. During appointments at primary care centres, physicians (n = 6), persons aged 75 or older (n = 21), and, when applicable, their next of kin (n = 2) collaboratively agreed on a medication plan, which was documented in the electronic health record. Over a 3-month follow-up period, data regarding the feasibility of the medication plan (usability and fidelity) and the feasibility of the research methods (recruitment and retention rates, data collection, and outcome measures) were collected.

Results: Usability assessed by the System Usability Scale scored a median of 51.3 out of 100 for physicians. The participants' experiences of the medication plan's usability addressed functionalities, individualisation for relevance, resources, and a de-prioritised medication plan. Fidelity was assessed based on 8 out of 15 older persons reporting that they had received a medication plan, and 59% of all prescribed medications had documented goals and/or comments. The recruitment rate was 75% for physicians and 70% for older persons. There were no changes in polypharmacy and no contact with healthcare due to suspected adverse drug events. The participants' perceptions of the medication plan's ability to promote patient safety addressed awareness and information, challenges beyond the medication plan, and patient involvement.

Conclusions: The implementation of the co-designed medication plan encountered challenges related to usability and fidelity, requiring collaborative refinements of the prototype. Additional difficulties arose from using a low-fidelity prototype in clinical practice. Our results emphasise the strength of combining qualitative and quantitative methods to capture participants' perspectives on the medication plan's ability to promote patient safety. Before conducting a larger study, the evaluation methods require further refinement.

Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT06016140 (retrospectively registered).

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Pilot and Feasibility Studies
Pilot and Feasibility Studies Medicine-Medicine (miscellaneous)
CiteScore
2.70
自引率
5.90%
发文量
241
审稿时长
9 weeks
期刊介绍: Pilot and Feasibility Studies encompasses all aspects of the design, conduct and reporting of pilot and feasibility studies in biomedicine. The journal publishes research articles that are intended to directly influence future clinical trials or large scale observational studies, as well as protocols, commentaries and methodology articles. The journal also ensures that the results of all well-conducted, peer-reviewed, pilot and feasibility studies are published, regardless of outcome or significance of findings. Pilot and feasibility studies are increasingly conducted prior to a full randomized controlled trial. However, these studies often lack clear objectives, many remain unpublished, and there is confusion over the meanings of the words “pilot” and “feasibility”. Pilot and Feasibility Studies provides a forum for discussion around this key aspect of the scientific process, and seeks to ensure that these studies are published, so as to complete the publication thread for clinical research.
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信