Dataset Information

Developing a measure of polypharmacy appropriateness in primary care: systematic review and expert consensus study.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND:Polypharmacy is an increasing challenge for primary care. Although sometimes clinically justified, polypharmacy can be inappropriate, leading to undesirable outcomes. Optimising care for polypharmacy necessitates effective targeting and monitoring of interventions. This requires a valid, reliable measure of polypharmacy, relevant for all patients, that considers clinical appropriateness and generic prescribing issues applicable across all medications. Whilst there are several existing measures of potentially inappropriate prescribing, these are not specifically designed with polypharmacy in mind, can require extensive clinical input to complete, and often cover a limited number of drugs. The aim of this study was to identify what experts consider to be the key elements of a measure of prescribing appropriateness in the context of polypharmacy. METHODS:Firstly, we conducted a systematic review to identify generic (not drug specific) prescribing indicators relevant to polypharmacy appropriateness. Indicators were subject to content analysis to enable categorisation. Secondly, we convened a panel of 10 clinical experts to review the identified indicators and assess their relative clinical importance. For each indicator category, a brief evidence summary was developed, based on relevant clinical and indicator literature, clinical guidance, and opinions obtained from a separate patient discussion panel. A two-stage RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method was used to reach consensus amongst the panel on a core set of indicators of polypharmacy appropriateness. RESULTS:We identified 20,879 papers for title/abstract screening, obtaining 273 full papers. We extracted 189 generic indicators, and presented 160 to the panel grouped into 18 classifications (e.g. adherence, dosage, clinical efficacy). After two stages, during which the panel introduced 18 additional indicators, there was consensus that 134 indicators were of clinical importance. Following the application of decision rules and further panel consultation, 12 indicators were placed into the final selection. Panel members particularly valued indicators concerned with adverse drug reactions, contraindications, drug-drug interactions, and the conduct of medication reviews. CONCLUSIONS:We have identified a set of 12 indicators of clinical importance considered relevant to polypharmacy appropriateness. Use of these indicators in clinical practice and informatics systems is dependent on their operationalisation and their utility (e.g. risk stratification, targeting and monitoring polypharmacy interventions) requires subsequent evaluation. TRIAL REGISTRATION:Registration number: PROSPERO ( CRD42016049176 ).

SUBMITTER: Burt J

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5998565 | biostudies-literature | 2018 Jun

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Developing a measure of polypharmacy appropriateness in primary care: systematic review and expert consensus study.

Burt Jenni J Elmore Natasha N Campbell Stephen M SM Rodgers Sarah S Avery Anthony J AJ Payne Rupert A RA

BMC medicine 20180613 1

<h4>Background</h4>Polypharmacy is an increasing challenge for primary care. Although sometimes clinically justified, polypharmacy can be inappropriate, leading to undesirable outcomes. Optimising care for polypharmacy necessitates effective targeting and monitoring of interventions. This requires a valid, reliable measure of polypharmacy, relevant for all patients, that considers clinical appropriateness and generic prescribing issues applicable across all medications. Whilst there are several ...[more]

PMID: 29895310

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundGlobal demographic trends suggest that the incidence of both urinary and faecal incontinence will rise in the coming years, bringing significant health and economic implications for both patients and payers. There is limited organisational evidence to guide payers and providers about service configuration which will deliver efficient guideline-compliant, high-quality patient care.ObjectivesTo create, using evidence from a systematic review, qualitative data and expert consensus an internationally applicable service specification for continence care.MethodEvidence was obtained from a systematic and grey literature review of published randomised controlled trials and quasi-experimental studies reporting efficacy of continence service design at the level of the community dwelling patient with either bladder or bowel incontinence, governmental reports and policy frameworks supplemented by data from 47 semi-structured interviews with clinicians, patients, patient-representatives and policy experts from four geographies broadly representative of different healthcare systems.ResultsA number of themes related to current and potential future organisation of continence care were identified from the data. A modular service specification with eight core components was created including case detection, initial assessment and treatment, case co-ordination, caregiver support, community-based support, specialist assessment and treatment, use of containment products, and use of technology. Within this framework important key recommendations are: ensure robust referral pathways, shift assessment for case coordination to nurses specializing in continence care, promote self-management and technology, use comprehensive assessment tools and service performance targets based on outcome and operational measures.ConclusionsThis study has defined practice gaps in the provision of continence services and described eight core components of a service specification for incontinence that commissioners and payers of health and social care could consider using to provide high-quality continence care. A shift towards a community-delivered, nurse-led model appears to be associated with clinical and cost-effective care for people with bladder and bowel incontinence.

Project description:BackgroundFamilial dysautonomia (Riley-Day syndrome, hereditary sensory autonomic neuropathy type-III) is a rare genetic disease caused by impaired development of sensory and afferent autonomic nerves. As a consequence, patients develop neurogenic dysphagia with frequent aspiration, chronic lung disease, and chemoreflex failure leading to severe sleep disordered breathing. The purpose of these guidelines is to provide recommendations for the diagnosis and treatment of respiratory disorders in familial dysautonomia.MethodsWe performed a systematic review to summarize the evidence related to our questions. When evidence was not sufficient, we used data from the New York University Familial Dysautonomia Patient Registry, a database containing ongoing prospective comprehensive clinical data from 670 cases. The evidence was summarized and discussed by a multidisciplinary panel of experts. Evidence-based and expert recommendations were then formulated, written, and graded using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) system.ResultsRecommendations were formulated for or against specific diagnostic tests and clinical interventions. Diagnostic tests reviewed included radiological evaluation, dysphagia evaluation, gastroesophageal evaluation, bronchoscopy and bronchoalveolar lavage, pulmonary function tests, laryngoscopy and polysomnography. Clinical interventions and therapies reviewed included prevention and management of aspiration, airway mucus clearance and chest physical therapy, viral respiratory infections, precautions during high altitude or air-flight travel, non-invasive ventilation during sleep, antibiotic therapy, steroid therapy, oxygen therapy, gastrostomy tube placement, Nissen fundoplication surgery, scoliosis surgery, tracheostomy and lung lobectomy.ConclusionsExpert recommendations for the diagnosis and management of respiratory disease in patients with familial dysautonomia are provided. Frequent reassessment and updating will be needed.

Project description:ObjectivesTo assess the effectiveness of a pharmacist-led systematic review of medications on: potentially inappropriate medications (PIM), health outcomes and costs.DesignProspective, open, controlled and cluster-randomized clinical trial.SettingSix primary care clinics from Balearic Islands.ParticipantsForty-two clusters (21 per group), and 549 patients aged ≥65 years and ≥5 chronic medications were included; of which 277 were allocated to Intervention Group (IG) and 272 to Control Group (CG). Patients were excluded if they were: institutionalized, temporarily displaced, routinely monitored under private healthcare, or home care.InterventionPIM detection by the pharmacist using a combination of explicit and implicit methods; and communication of the most appropriate therapeutic strategies to the physician.MeasurementsProportion of patients with PIM and mean number of PIM/patient (main outcomes); and morbidity, mortality, and costs (secondary outcomes) were assessed.Statistical planFollowing an intention-to-treat approach, quantitative and qualitative outcomes variables were compared by T-Student and Chi-square tests, respectively. Results were providing as difference in proportions for qualitative outcomes and difference in means for quantitative outcomes with respective 95% confidence intervals (95% CI).ResultsAfter intervention, proportion of patients with PIM decreased by 13.7% (95% CI: 9.3; 18.2) more in IG than CG. Mean number of PIM/patient and mean cost of PIM/patient decreased by 0.43 (95% CI: 0.32; 0.54) and 72.11€ (95% CI: 26.15; 118.06) more in IG than CG, respectively. However, no statistically significant differences were observed in morbidity, mortality or costs of healthcare resources.ConclusionsPIM detection and recommendations provided by pharmacist could contribute to reduce significantly PIM and drug expenditure; but without reaching statistically significant differences in morbidity, mortality, and healthcare resources costs.

Project description:BackgroundPrimary care in England is facing increasing pressure due to the increasing number and complexity of consultations and the declining number of doctors per head of population. The improvement of primary care efficiency and productivity should be a priority, to ensure that future investments in the medical workforce can cope with the increasingly large and complex demand for care.ObjectivesThis paper presents a systematic literature review of studies that define or measure efficiency in primary care in high-income settings. The review of the existing definitions of primary care efficiency and their limitations will inform future research on the measurement of efficiency in primary care in England and its determinants.MethodsLiterature searches were performed on Embase, Medline, and EconLit in January 2020. The records that passed the screening were reviewed in full text, and data on the study settings, the efficiency definition, and the efficiency analysis were extracted.ResultsOf the 2590 non-duplicate records retrieved from the searches, 38 papers were included in the analysis. The volume of the literature on primary care efficiency has evolved significantly from the 1980s, with the majority of the published studies focussing on European health systems. The setting most often analysed was primary care centres. Output was usually expressed using measures of primary care utilisation, with or without quality adjustments. Reference to the health outcomes achieved was, however, limited. Inputs were more commonly expressed in labour terms, while the exogenous variables related either to the characteristics of the patient population or the organisation of primary care. While all studies included an analysis of technical efficiency, consideration of allocative or cost efficiency or the determinants of productivity (e.g. technological change, skill mix) was rare.ConclusionsThe main limitations that future research on primary care efficiency should address relate to the definition of output. Current approaches to measure the impact on health and the multiple dimensions of output are not sufficient to represent the valued output of primary care. In light of the recent changes in the model of primary care delivery in England, future research should also investigate the impact of technological change on productivity and the scope for substitution across staff roles.

Project description:Background: Neuropathic pain (NP), a severe and disruptive symptom following many diseases, normally restricts patients' physical functions and leads to anxiety and depression. As an economical and effective therapy, exercise may be helpful in NP management. However, few guidelines and reviews focused on exercise therapy for NP associated with specific diseases. The study aimed to summarize the effectiveness and efficacy of exercise for various diseases with NP supported by evidence, describe expert recommendations for NP from different causes, and inform policymakers of the guidelines. Design: A systematic review and expert consensus. Methods: A systematic search was conducted in PubMed. We included systematic review and meta-analysis, randomized controlled trials (RCTs), which assessed patients with NP. Studies involved exercise intervention and outcome included pain intensity at least. Physiotherapy Evidence Database and the Assessment of Multiple Systematic reviews tool were used to grade the quality assessment of the included RCTs and systematic reviews, respectively. The final grades of recommendation were based on strength of evidence and a consensus discussion of results of Delphi rounds by the Delphi consensus panel including 21 experts from the Chinese Association of Rehabilitation Medicine. Results: Eight systematic reviews and 21 RCTs fulfilled all of the inclusion criteria and were included, which were used to create the 10 evidence-based consensus statements. The 10 expert recommendations regarding exercise for NP symptoms were relevant to the following 10 different diseases: spinal cord injury, stroke, multiple sclerosis, Parkinson's disease, cervical radiculopathy, sciatica, diabetic neuropathy, chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy, HIV/AIDS, and surgery, respectively. The exercise recommended in the expert consensus involved but was not limited to muscle stretching, strengthening/resistance exercise, aerobic exercise, motor control/stabilization training and mind-body exercise (Tai Chi and yoga). Conclusions: Based on the available evidence, exercise is helpful to alleviate NP intensity. Therefore, these expert consensuses recommend that proper exercise programs can be considered as an effective alternative treatment or complementary therapy for most patients with NP. The expert consensus provided medical staff and policymakers with applicable recommendations for the formulation of exercise prescription for NP. This consensus statement will require regular updates after five-ten years.

Project description:BackgroundThere is no consensus on the instruments for diagnosis of post-intensive care syndrome (PICS). We present a proposal for a set of outcome measurement instruments of PICS in outpatient care.MethodsWe conducted a three-round, semi-structured consensus-seeking process with medical experts, followed each by exploratory feasibility investigations with intensive care unit survivors (n1 = 5; n2 = 5; n3 = 7). Fourteen participants from nine stakeholder groups participated in the first and second consensus meeting. In the third consensus meeting, a core group of six clinical researchers refined the final outcome measurement instrument set proposal.ResultsWe suggest an outcome measurement instrument set used in a two-step process. First step: Screening with brief tests covering PICS domains of (1) mental health (Patient Health Questionnaire-4 (PHQ-4)), (2) cognition (MiniCog, Animal Naming), (3) physical function (Timed Up-and-Go (TUG), handgrip strength), and (4) health-related quality of life (HRQoL) (EQ-5D-5L). Single items measure subjective health before and after the intensive care unit stay. If patients report new or worsened health problems after intensive care unit discharge and show relevant impairment in at least one of the screening tests, a second extended assessment follows: (1) Mental health (Patient Health Questionnaire-8 (PHQ-8), Generalized Anxiety Disorder Scale-7 (GAD-7), Impact of Event Scale - revised (IES-R)); (2) cognition (Repeatable Battery for the Assessment of Neuropsychological Status (RBANS), Trail Making Test (TMT) A and B); (3) physical function (2-Minute Walk Test (2-MWT), handgrip strength, Short Physical Performance Battery (SPPB)); and (4) HRQoL (EQ-5D-5L, 12-Item WHO Disability Assessment Schedule (WHODAS 2.0)).ConclusionsWe propose an outcome measurement instrument set used in a two-step measurement of PICS, combining performance-based and patient-reported outcome measures. First-step screening is brief, free-of-charge, and easily applicable by health care professionals across different sectors. If indicated, specialized healthcare providers can perform the extended, second-step assessment. Usage of the first-step screening of our suggested outcome measurement instrument set in outpatient clinics with subsequent transfer to specialists is recommended for all intensive care unit survivors. This may increase awareness and reduce the burden of PICS.Trial registrationThis study was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (Identifier: NCT04175236; first posted 22 November 2019).

Project description:BackgroundMedication management for people living with dementia is a complex task as it is unclear what constitutes optimal medication management in this population due to the shifting focus of health priorities and the balance between the benefits and harms of medications.AimThis study sought expert opinion to create a consensus list to define appropriate medication management of co-morbidities for people with dementia.MethodsThis study used the Delphi technique. We invited multidisciplinary experts in geriatric therapeutics including pharmacists, doctors, nurse practitioners, a patient advocate and a psychologist to participate. Participants were asked to engage into three or more rounds of questioning. Round 1 was a questionnaire comprised of one question defining dementia and seven open-ended questions about appropriate management of co-morbidities in people with dementia. Two investigators qualitatively analysed the responses to questions from Round 1 using thematic analysis. The results of this analysis were provided to participants as statements in the Round 2 survey. The participants were asked to rate their agreement with each statement on a 5-point Likert scale. The median and interquartile range (IQR) were calculated for the responses to each statement. Consensus was pre-specified as an IQR less than or equal to 1. Statements where consensus was not achieved were presented to participants in Round 3. The Round 2 median and IQR values were provided and participants were again asked to rate their agreement with each statement on a 5-point Likert scale. The statements where participants agreed or strongly agreed were included in the Medication Appropriateness Tool for Co-morbid Health conditions in Dementia criteria.ResultsFifty-seven experts agreed to participate in the study, of whom 58% were pharmacists and 36% were medical practitioners. Fifty-five participants completed the Round 1 (95% response rate). A total of 128 statements was included in the Round 2 survey. Consensus was reached on 93 statements in Round 2 (n = 48 responders, 84% response rate) and on 18 statements in Round 3 (n = 43 responders, 75% response rate). The participants reached consensus on 111 of 128 statements. Of these statements, 67 statements were included in the Medication Appropriateness Tool for Co-morbid Health conditions in Dementia criteria. The statements were in the broad themes of preventative medication, symptom management, disease progression, psychoactive medication, treatment goals, principles of medication use, side-effects and medication reviews.DiscussionThis research provides consensus-based guidance for clinicians who manage co-morbid health conditions in people with dementia.

Dataset Information

Developing a measure of polypharmacy appropriateness in primary care: systematic review and expert consensus study.

Publications

Developing a measure of polypharmacy appropriateness in primary care: systematic review and expert consensus study.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets