Dataset Information

Deprescribing anticholinergic and sedative medicines: protocol for a Feasibility Trial (DEFEAT-polypharmacy) in residential aged care facilities.

ABSTRACT: INTRODUCTION:Targeted deprescribing of anticholinergic and sedative medicines can lead to positive health outcomes in older people; as they have been associated with cognitive and physical functioning decline. This study will examine whether the proposed intervention is feasible at reducing the prescription of anticholinergic and sedative medicines in older people. METHODS AND ANALYSIS:The Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Interventional trials (SPIRIT checklist) was used to develop and report the protocol. Single group (precomparison and postcomparison) feasibility study design. STUDY POPULATION:3 residential care homes have been recruited. INTERVENTION:This will involve a New Zealand registered pharmacist using peer-reviewed deprescribing guidelines, to recommend to general practitioners (GPs), sedative and anticholinergic medicines that can be deprescribed. The cumulative use of anticholinergic and sedative medicines for each participant will be quantified, using the Drug Burden Index (DBI). OUTCOMES:The primary outcome will be the change in the participants' DBI total and DBI PRN 3 and 6?months after implementing the deprescribing intervention. Secondary outcomes will include the number of recommendations taken up by the GP, participants' cognitive functioning, depression, quality of life, activities of daily living and number of falls. DATA COLLECTION POINTS:Participants' demographic and clinical data will be collected at the time of enrolment, along with the DBI. Outcome measures will be collected at the time of enrolment, 3 and 6?months' postenrolment. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION:Ethics approval has been granted by the Human Disability and Ethics Committee. Ethical approval number (16/NTA/61). TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER:Pre-results; ACTRN12616000721404.

SUBMITTER: Ailabouni N

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5775460 | biostudies-literature | 2017 Apr

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Deprescribing anticholinergic and sedative medicines: protocol for a Feasibility Trial (DEFEAT-polypharmacy) in residential aged care facilities.

Ailabouni Nagham N Mangin Dee D Nishtala Prasad S PS

BMJ open 20170416 4

<h4>Introduction</h4>Targeted deprescribing of anticholinergic and sedative medicines can lead to positive health outcomes in older people; as they have been associated with cognitive and physical functioning decline. This study will examine whether the proposed intervention is feasible at reducing the prescription of anticholinergic and sedative medicines in older people.<h4>Methods and analysis</h4>The Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Interventional trials (SPIRIT checklist) was us ...[more]

PMID: 28416498

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundOur aim in this research was to establish whether integrating an electronically generated calculation and report on the Drug Burden Index (DBI) in the Home Medicines Review (HMR) setting is an accurate, feasible and useful risk assessment tool to assess risk of anticholinergic and sedative medications; and to establish whether the intervention of DBI together with HMR is associated with a reduced use of anticholinergic and sedative medications in older community-dwelling adults in Australia.MethodsAn interventional feasibility study was conducted. Accredited clinical pharmacists (APs) were recruited to participate. Each AP was educated on implementation of the DBI into HMR practice and given access to the DBI Calculator© web-based software to generate the DBI report for inclusion in HMR reports for general practitioners (GPs). APs recruited patients (?65 years) who were referred to them for HMRs. Patients were sent a letter about their DBI exposure, and a prompt to visit their GP to discuss their medication management options. GPs, APs and patients were asked to evaluate the feasibility and utility of the DBI report. A medication inventory was collected from patients at the time of the HMR and at 3 months to determine whether the intervention affected deprescribing of medications with anticholinergic and sedative effects.ResultsRegarding the feasibility of the DBI report as a risk assessment tool within HMR, 89% of APs and 67% of GPs agreed that it would be feasible. The DBI Calculator© was potentially inaccurate, as 26% of DBI scores were underestimated and 7% were overestimated (at baseline). At 3 months, the median (interquartile range) DBI for patients (n = 100) significantly decreased from 0.82 (0-1.33) to 0.67 (0-1.29) (p = 0.014). Additionally, of patients with a DBI > 0 (n = 66), 36.4% had their DBI score decrease, and 6.1% had a score increase.ConclusionThis study demonstrated that integration of the DBI Calculator© into HMR is a feasible and useful method to prompt deprescribing of anticholinergic and sedative medications in older adults. There is potential for the accuracy of the web-based platform to be improved.Registration of trialName: Feasibility study of the Drug Burden Index with Home Medicines Review.Website: https://www.anzctr.org.au/Trial/Registration/TrialReview.aspx?id=368523Trial ID: ACTRN 12615000539538.

Project description:BackgroundTargeted deprescribing of anticholinergic and sedative medications in older people may improve their health outcomes. This trial will determine if pharmacist-led reviews lead to general practitioners deprescribing anticholinergic and sedative medications in older people living in the community.Methods and analysisThe standard protocol items: Recommendations for Interventional Trials (SPIRIT) checklist was used to develop and report the protocol. The trial will involve older adults stratified by frailty (low, medium, and high). This will be a pragmatic two-arm randomized controlled trial to test general practitioner uptake of pharmacist recommendations to deprescribe anticholinergic and sedative medications that are causing adverse side effects in patients.Study populationCommunity-dwelling frail adults, 65 years or older, living in the Canterbury region of New Zealand, seeking publicly funded home support services or admission to aged residential care and taking at least one anticholinergic or sedative medication regularly.InterventionNew Zealand registered pharmacists using peer-reviewed deprescribing guidelines will visit participants at home in the community, review their medications, and recommend anticholinergic and sedative medications that could be deprescribed to the participant's general practitioner. The total use of anticholinergic and sedative medications will be quantified using the Drug Burden Index (DBI).OutcomesThe primary outcome will be the change in total DBI between baseline and 6-month follow-up. Secondary outcomes will include entry into aged residential care, prolonged hospitalization, and death.Data collection pointsData will be collected at the time of interRAI assessments (T0), at the time of the baseline review (T1), at 6 months following the baseline review (T2), and at the end of the study period, or end of study participation for participants admitted into aged residential care, or who died (T3).Ethics and disseminationEthical approval has been obtained from the Human, Disability and Ethics Committee: ethical number (17CEN265).Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov ACTRN12618000729224 . Registered on May 2, 2018, with the Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry.

Project description:BackgroundPatients taking medication with high anticholinergic and sedative properties are at increased risk of experiencing poor cognitive and physical outcomes. Therefore, precise quantification of the cumulative burden of their drug regimen is advisable. There is no agreement regarding which scale to use to simultaneously quantify the burden associated with medications.ObjectivesThe objective of this review was to assess the strengths and limitations of available tools to quantify medication-related anticholinergic burden and sedative load in older adults. We discuss specific limitations and agreements between currently available scales and models and propose a comprehensive table combining drugs categorized as high, moderate, low, or no anticholinergic or sedative activity as excerpted from the selected studies.MethodsA targeted search was carried out using the National Library of Medicine through PubMed using medical subject heading terms and text words around the following search terms: (anticholinergic OR sedative) AND (load OR burden OR scale) for studies published between 1 January 1945 and 5 June 2021. In addition, the following databases were searched using the same terms: MEDLINE-EBSCO, APA PsycInfo, CINAHL Plus, Cochrane Library, Scopus, OAIster, OVID-MEDLINE, Web of Science, and Google Scholar. Screening by titles was followed by an abstract and full-text review. After blind evaluation, agreement between reviewers was reached to establish drug characteristics and categories.ResultsAfter 3163 articles were identified, 13 were included: 11 assigned risk scores to anticholinergic drugs and two to sedative drugs. Considerable variability between anticholinergic scales was observed; scales included between 27 and 548 drugs. We generated a comprehensive table combining the anticholinergic and sedative activities of drugs evaluated and proposed a categorization of these drugs based on available scientific and clinical evidence. Our table combines information about 642 drugs and categorizes 44, 25, 99, and 474 drugs as high, moderate, low, or no anticholinergic and sedative activity, respectively.ConclusionsVariability and inconsistency exists among scales used to categorize drugs with anticholinergic or sedative burden. In this review, we provide a comprehensive table that proposes a new categorization of these drugs. A longitudinal study will be required to validate the new proposed anticholinergic and sedative burden catalog in an evidence-based manner.

Project description:ObjectiveTo evaluate if a pharmacist-led medication review is effective at reducing the anticholinergic/sedative load, as measured by the Drug Burden Index (DBI).DesignRandomised controlled single blind trial.Setting15 community pharmacies in the Northern Netherlands.Participants157 community-dwelling patients aged ≥65 years who used ≥5 medicines for ≥3 months, including at least one psycholeptic/psychoanaleptic medication and who had a DBI≥1.InterventionA medication review by the community pharmacist in collaboration with the patient's general practitioner and patient.Primary and secondary outcomes measuresThe primary outcome was the proportion of patients whose DBI decreased by at least 0.5. Secondary outcomes were the presence of anticholinergic/sedative side effects, falls, cognitive function, activities of daily living, quality of life, hospital admission and mortality. Data were collected at baseline and 3 months follow-up.ResultsMean participant age was 75.7 (SD, 6.9) years in the intervention arm and 76.6 (SD, 6.7) years in the control arm, the majority were female (respectively 69.3% and 72.0%). Logistic regression analysis showed no difference in the proportion of patients with a≥0.5 decrease in DBI between intervention arm (17.3%) and control arm (15.9%), (OR 1.04, CI 0.47 to 2.64, p=0.927). Intervention patients scored higher on the Digit Symbol Substitution Test, measure of cognitive function (OR 2.02, CI 1.11 to 3.67, p=0.021) and reported fewer sedative side effects (OR 0.61, CI 0.40 to 0.94, p=0.024) at follow-up. No significant difference was found for other secondary outcomes.ConclusionsPharmacist-led medication review as currently performed in the Netherlands was not effective in reducing the anticholinergic/sedative load, measured with the DBI, within the time frame of 3 months. Preventive strategies, signalling a rising load and taking action before chronic use of anticholinergic/sedative medication is established may be more successful.Trial registration numberNCT02317666.

Project description:BackgroundThe provision of residential aged care is underpinned by information, and is reliant upon systems that adequately capture and effectively utilise and communicate this information. The aim of this study was to explicate and quantify the volume and method by which information is collected, exchanged within facilities and with external providers, and retrieved from facility information systems and hospitals.MethodsA survey of staff (n = 119), including managers, health informatics officers (HIOs), quality improvement staff, registered nurses (RNs), enrolled nurses (ENs)/endorsed enrolled nurses (EENs) and assistants in nursing (AINs) was carried out in four residential aged care facilities in New South Wales and Victoria, Australia. Sites varied in size and displayed a range of information technology (IT) capabilities. The survey investigated how and by whom information is collected, retrieved and exchanged, and the frequency and amount of time devoted to these tasks. Descriptive analysis was performed using SPSS, and open responses to questions were coded into key themes.ResultsStaff completed a median of six forms each, taking a median of 30 min per shift. 68.8% of staff reported transferring information from paper to a computer system, which took a median of 30 min per shift. Handover and face-to-face communication was the most frequently used form of information exchange within facilities. There was a large amount of faxing and telephone communication between facility staff and General Practitioners and community pharmacists, with staff reporting sending a median of 2 faxes to pharmacy and 1.5 faxes to General Practitioners, and initiating 2 telephone calls to pharmacies and 1.5 calls to General Practitioners per shift. Only 38.5% of respondents reported that they always had information available at the point-of-care and only 35.4% of respondents reported that they always had access to hospital stay information of residents after hospital discharge.ConclusionsThis survey identified a high volume of information exchange activities, as well as inefficient procedures, such as the transfer of information from paper to computer systems and the reliance upon faxes for communication with external providers. These findings contribute to evidence for the need for interoperable IT systems to allow more efficient and reliable information exchange between facilities and external providers.

Dataset Information

Deprescribing anticholinergic and sedative medicines: protocol for a Feasibility Trial (DEFEAT-polypharmacy) in residential aged care facilities.

Publications

Deprescribing anticholinergic and sedative medicines: protocol for a Feasibility Trial (DEFEAT-polypharmacy) in residential aged care facilities.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets