Dataset Information

Family conferences and shared prioritisation to improve patient safety in the frail elderly (COFRAIL): study protocol of a cluster randomised intervention trial in primary care.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND:Frailty in elderly patients is associated with an increased risk of poor health outcomes, including falls, delirium, malnutrition, hospitalisation, and mortality. Because polypharmacy is recognised as a possible major contributor to the pathogenesis of geriatric frailty, reducing inappropriate medication exposure is supposed to be a promising approach to improve health-related quality of life and prevent adverse outcomes. A major challenge for the process of deprescribing of inappropriate polypharmacy is to improve the communication between general practitioner (GPs), patient and family carer. This study investigates the effects of a complex intervention in frail elderly patients with polypharmacy living at home. METHODS:This is a cluster randomised controlled trial including 136 GPs and 676 patients. Patients with a positive clinical screening for frailty are eligible if they are aged 70?years or older, receiving family or professional nursing care at home, and taking in five or more drugs per day. Exclusion criteria are higher grade of dementia and life expectancy of 6 months or less. The GPs of the intervention group receive an educational training promoting a deprescribing guideline and providing information on how to conduct a family conference focussing on prioritisation of treatment goals concerning drug therapy. During the 1-year intervention, GPs are expected to perform a total of three family conferences, each including a structured medication review with patients and their family carers. GPs of the control group will receive no training and will deliver care as usual. Geriatric assessment of all patients will be performed by study nurses during home visits at baseline and after 6 and 12 months. The primary outcome is the hospitalisation rate during the observation period of 12?months. Secondary outcomes are number and appropriateness of medications, mobility, weakness, cognition, depressive disorder, health-related quality of life, activities of daily living, weight, and costs of health care use. DISCUSSION:This study will provide evidence for a pragmatic co-operative and patient-centred educational intervention using family conferences to improve patient safety in frail elderly patients with polypharmacy. TRIAL REGISTRATION:German Clinical Trials Register, DRKS00015055 (WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform [ICTRP]). Registered on 6 February 2019.

SUBMITTER: Mortsiefer A

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7082941 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Mar

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Family conferences and shared prioritisation to improve patient safety in the frail elderly (COFRAIL): study protocol of a cluster randomised intervention trial in primary care.

Mortsiefer Achim A Wilm Stefan S Santos Sara S Löscher Susanne S Wollny Anja A Drewelow Eva E Ritzke Manuela M Thürmann Petra P Mann Nina-Kristin NK Meyer Gabriele G Abraham Jens J Icks Andrea A Montalbo Joseph J Wiese Birgitt B Altiner Attila A

Trials 20200320 1

<h4>Background</h4>Frailty in elderly patients is associated with an increased risk of poor health outcomes, including falls, delirium, malnutrition, hospitalisation, and mortality. Because polypharmacy is recognised as a possible major contributor to the pathogenesis of geriatric frailty, reducing inappropriate medication exposure is supposed to be a promising approach to improve health-related quality of life and prevent adverse outcomes. A major challenge for the process of deprescribing of i ...[more]

PMID: 32197631

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundPublic priorities for improvement often differ from those of clinicians and managers. Public involvement has been proposed as a way to bridge the gap between professional and public clinical care priorities but has not been studied in the context of quality-indicator choice. Our objective is to assess the feasibility and impact of public involvement on quality-indicator choice and agreement with public priorities.MethodsWe will conduct a cluster randomised controlled trial comparing quality-indicator prioritisation with and without public involvement. In preparation for the trial, we developed a 'menu' of quality indicators, based on a systematic review of existing validated indicator sets. Participants (public representatives, clinicians, and managers) will be recruited from six participating sites. In intervention sites, public representatives will be involved through direct participation (public representatives, clinicians, and managers will deliberate together to agree on quality-indicator choice and use) and consultation (individual public recommendations for improvement will be collected and presented to decision makers). In control sites, only clinicians and managers will take part in the prioritisation process. Data on quality-indicator choice and intended use will be collected. Our primary outcome will compare quality-indicator choice and agreement with public priorities between intervention and control groups. A process evaluation based on direct observation, videorecording, and participants' assessment will be conducted to help explain the study's results. The marginal cost of public involvement will also be assessed.DiscussionWe identified 801 quality indicators that met our inclusion criteria. An expert panel agreed on a final set of 37 items containing validated quality indicators relevant for chronic disease prevention and management in primary care. We pilot tested our public-involvement intervention with 27 participants (11 public representatives and 16 clinicians and managers) and our study instruments with an additional 21 participants, which demonstrated the feasibility of the intervention and generated important insights and adaptations to engage public representatives more effectively. To our knowledge, this study is the first trial of public involvement in quality-indicator prioritisation, and its results could foster more effective upstream engagement of patients and the public in clinical practice improvement.Trial registrationNTR2496 (Netherlands National Trial Register, http://www.trialregister.nl).

Project description:Objective To evaluate the effectiveness of feedback on safety of prescribing compared with moderately enhanced usual care.Design Three arm, highly pragmatic cluster randomised trial.Setting and participants 262/278 (94%) primary care practices in three Scottish health boards.Interventions Practices were randomised to: "usual care," consisting of emailed educational material with support for searching to identify patients (88 practices at baseline, 86 analysed); usual care plus feedback on practice's high risk prescribing sent quarterly on five occasions (87 practices, 86 analysed); or usual care plus the same feedback incorporating a behavioural change component (87 practices, 86 analysed).Main outcome measures The primary outcome was a patient level composite of six prescribing measures relating to high risk use of antipsychotics, non-steroidal anti-inflammatories, and antiplatelets. Secondary outcomes were the six individual measures. The primary analysis compared high risk prescribing in the two feedback arms against usual care at 15 months. Secondary analyses examined immediate change and change in trend of high risk prescribing associated with implementation of the intervention within each arm.Results In the primary analysis, high risk prescribing as measured by the primary outcome fell from 6.0% (3332/55 896) to 5.1% (2845/55 872) in the usual care arm, compared with 5.9% (3341/56 194) to 4.6% (2587/56 478) in the feedback only arm (odds ratio 0.88 (95% confidence interval 0.80 to 0.96) compared with usual care; P=0.007) and 6.2% (3634/58 569) to 4.6% (2686/58 582) in the feedback plus behavioural change component arm (0.86 (0.78 to 0.95); P=0.002). In the pre-specified secondary analysis of change in trend within each arm, the usual care educational intervention had no effect on the existing declining trend in high risk prescribing. Both types of feedback were associated with significantly more rapid decline in high risk prescribing after the intervention compared with before.Conclusions Feedback of prescribing safety data was effective at reducing high risk prescribing. The intervention would be feasible to implement at scale in contexts where electronic health records are in general use.Trial registration Clinical trials NCT01602705.

Project description:IntroductionAlmost 60% of antibiotics in frail elderly are prescribed for alleged urinary tract infections (UTIs). A substantial part of this comprises prescriptions in case of non-specific symptoms or asymptomatic bacteriuria, for which the latest guidelines promote restrictiveness with antibiotics. We aim to reduce inappropriate antibiotic use for UTIs through an antibiotic stewardship intervention (ASI) that encourages to prescribe according to these guidelines. To develop an effective ASI, we first need a better understanding of the complex decision-making process concerning suspected UTIs in frail elderly. Moreover, the implementation approach requires tailoring to the heterogeneous elderly care setting.Methods and analysisFirst, we conduct a qualitative study to explore factors contributing to antibiotic prescribing for UTIs in frail elderly, using semi-structured interviews with general practitioners, nursing staff, patients and informal caregivers. Next, we perform a pragmatic cluster randomised controlled trial in elderly care organisations. A multifaceted ASI is implemented in the intervention group; the control group receives care as usual. The ASI is centred around a decision tool that promotes restrictive antibiotic use, supported by a toolbox with educational materials. For the implementation, we use a modified participatory-action-research approach, guided by the results of the qualitative study. The primary outcome is the number of antibiotic prescriptions for suspected UTIs. We aim to recruit 34 clusters with in total 680 frail elderly residents ≥70 years. Data collection takes place during a 5-month baseline period and a 7-month follow-up period. Finally, we perform a process evaluation. The study has been delayed for 6 months due to COVID-19 and is expected to end in July 2021.Ethics and disseminationEthical approvals and/or waivers were obtained from the ethical committees in Poland, the Netherlands, Norway and Sweden. The results will be disseminated through publication in peer-reviewed journals and conference presentations.Trial registration numberNCT03970356.

Project description:BackgroundHigh-risk prescribing in primary care is common and causes considerable harm. Feedback interventions have small/moderate effects on clinical practice, but few trials explicitly compare different forms of feedback. There is growing recognition that intervention development should be theory-informed, and that comprehensive reporting of intervention design is required by potential users of trial findings. The paper describes intervention development for the Effective Feedback to Improve Primary Care Prescribing Safety (EFIPPS) study, a pragmatic three-arm cluster randomised trial in 262 Scottish general practices.MethodsThe NHS chose to implement a feedback intervention to utilise a new resource, new Prescribing Information System (newPIS). The development phase required selection of high-risk prescribing outcome measures and design of intervention components: (1) educational material (the usual care comparison), (2) feedback of practice rates of high-risk prescribing received by both intervention arms and (3) a theory-informed behaviour change component to be received by one intervention arm. Outcome measures, educational material and feedback design, were developed with a National Health Service Advisory Group. The behaviour change component was informed by the Theory of Planned Behaviour and the Health Action Process Approach. A focus group elicitation study and an email Delphi study with general practitioners (GPs) identified key attitudes and barriers of responding to the prescribing feedback. Behaviour change techniques were mapped to the psychological constructs, and the content was informed by the results of the elicitation and Delphi study.ResultsSix high-risk prescribing measures were selected in a consensus process based on importance and feasibility. Educational material and feedback design were based on current NHS Scotland practice and Advisory Group recommendations. The behaviour change component was resource constrained in development, mirroring what is feasible in an NHS context. Four behaviour change interventions were developed and embedded in five quarterly rounds of feedback targeting attitudes, subjective norms, perceived behavioural control and action planning (2×).ConclusionsThe paper describes a process which is feasible to use in the resource-constrained environment of NHS-led intervention development and documents the intervention to make its design and implementation explicit to potential users of the trial findings.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01602705.

Project description:ObjectiveTo evaluate whether antibiotic prescribing for suspected urinary tract infections in frail older adults can be reduced through a multifaceted antibiotic stewardship intervention.DesignPragmatic, parallel, cluster randomised controlled trial, with a five month baseline period and a seven month follow-up period.Setting38 clusters consisting of one or more general practices (n=43) and older adult care organisations (n=43) in Poland, the Netherlands, Norway, and Sweden, from September 2019 to June 2021.Participants1041 frail older adults aged 70 or older (Poland 325, the Netherlands 233, Norway 276, Sweden 207), contributing 411 person years to the follow-up period.InterventionHealthcare professionals received a multifaceted antibiotic stewardship intervention consisting of a decision tool for appropriate antibiotic use, supported by a toolbox with educational materials. A participatory-action-research approach was used for implementation, with sessions for education, evaluation, and local tailoring of the intervention. The control group provided care as usual.Main outcome measuresThe primary outcome was the number of antibiotic prescriptions for suspected urinary tract infections per person year. Secondary outcomes included the incidence of complications, all cause hospital referrals, all cause hospital admissions, all cause mortality within 21 days after suspected urinary tract infections, and all cause mortality.ResultsThe numbers of antibiotic prescriptions for suspected urinary tract infections in the follow-up period were 54 prescriptions in 202 person years (0.27 per person year) in the intervention group and 121 prescriptions in 209 person years (0.58 per person year) in the usual care group. Participants in the intervention group had a lower rate of receiving an antibiotic prescription for a suspected urinary tract infection compared with participants in the usual care group, with a rate ratio of 0.42 (95% confidence interval 0.26 to 0.68). No differences between intervention and control group were observed in the incidence of complications (<0.01 v 0.05 per person year), hospital referrals (<0.01 v 0.05), admissions to hospital (0.01 v 0.05), and mortality (0 v 0.01) within 21 days after suspected urinary tract infections, nor in all cause mortality (0.26 v 0.26).ConclusionsImplementation of a multifaceted antibiotic stewardship intervention safely reduced antibiotic prescribing for suspected urinary tract infections in frail older adults.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov NCT03970356.

Project description:ObjectivesThis study sought to assess the effectiveness and return on investment (ROI) of a multifaceted intervention aimed at improving antibiotic prescribing for acute respiratory infections in primary care.DesignLarge-sized, two-arm, open-label, pragmatic, cluster-randomised controlled trial.SettingAll primary care physicians working for the Spanish National Health Service (NHS) in Galicia (region in north-west Spain).ParticipantsThe seven spatial clusters were distributed by unequal randomisation (3:4) of the intervention and control groups. A total of 1217 physicians (1.30 million patients) were recruited from intervention clusters and 1393 physicians (1.46 million patients) from control clusters.InterventionsOne-hour educational outreach visits tailored to training needs identified in a previous study; an online course integrated in practice accreditation; and a clinical decision support system.Main outcome measuresChanges in the ESAC (European Surveillance of Antimicrobial Consumption) quality indicators for outpatient antibiotic use. We used generalised linear mixed and conducted a ROI analysis to ascertain the overall cost savings.ResultsMedian follow-up was 19 months. The adjusted effect on overall antibiotic prescribing attributable to the intervention was - 4.2% (95% CI: - 5.3% to - 3.2%), with this being more pronounced for penicillins - 6.5 (95% CI: - 7.9% to - 5.2%) and for the ratio of consumption of broad- to narrow-spectrum penicillins, cephalosporins, and macrolides - 9.0% (95% CI: - 14.0 to - 4.1%). The cost of the intervention was €87 per physician. Direct savings per physician attributable to the reduction in antibiotic prescriptions was €311 for the NHS and €573 for patient contributions, with an ROI of €2.57 and €5.59 respectively.ConclusionsInterventions designed on the basis of gaps in physicians' knowledge of and attitudes to misprescription can improve antibiotic prescribing and yield important direct cost savings.Trial registrationCurrent Controlled Trials ISRCTN24158380 . Registered 5 February 2009.

Project description:Introduction:Clinical guidelines recommend non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants (NOACs) over vitamin K antagonists (VKAs) for stroke prevention in most patients with atrial fibrillation (AF). Frail elderly were under-represented in the landmark NOAC-trials, leaving a knowledge gap on the optimal anticoagulant management (VKA or NOAC) in this increasing population. The aim of the Frail-AF (FRAIL-AF) study is to assess whether switching from international normalised ratio (INR)-guided VKA-management to a NOAC-based treatment strategy compared with continuing VKA-management is safe in frail elderly patients with AF.Methods and analysis:The FRAIL-AF study is a pragmatic, multicentre, open-label, randomised controlled clinical trial. Frail elderly (age ≥75 years plus a Groningen Frailty Indicator score ≥3) who receive VKA-treatment for AF in the absence of a mechanical heart valve or severe mitral valve stenosis will be randomised to switch to a NOAC-based treatment strategy or to continue INR-guided VKA-management. Patients with severe renal impairment (estimated glomerular filtration rate <30 mL/min/1.73 m2) will be excluded from randomisation. Based on existing trial evidence in non-frail patients, we will aim to explore whether NOAC-treatment is superior to VKA-therapy in reducing major or clinically relevant non-major bleeding events. Secondary outcomes include minor bleeding, the composite of ischaemic and haemorrhagic stroke, health-related quality of life and cost-effectiveness. The follow-up period for all subjects is 12 months.Ethics and dissemination:The protocol was approved by the Medical Research Ethics Committee of the University Medical Center Utrecht, the Netherlands and by the Central Committee on Research Involving Human Subjects, the Netherlands. All patients are asked written informed consent. Results are expected in 2022 and will be disseminated through peer-reviewed journals as well as presentations at national and international conferences.Trial registration number:EudraCT: 2017-000393-11; The Netherlands Trial Registry: 6721 (FRAIL-AF study).

Dataset Information

Family conferences and shared prioritisation to improve patient safety in the frail elderly (COFRAIL): study protocol of a cluster randomised intervention trial in primary care.

Publications

Family conferences and shared prioritisation to improve patient safety in the frail elderly (COFRAIL): study protocol of a cluster randomised intervention trial in primary care.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets