Dataset Information

Organising polypharmacy: unpacking medicines, unpacking meanings-an ethnographic study.

ABSTRACT:

Objectives

We explore how older patients affected by polypharmacy manage the 'hidden work' of organising their medicines, how they make sense of this work and integrate it into their lives.

Design and setting

Ethnographic study observing patients over 18-24 months in patients' homes, general practice and community pharmacy, in England, UK.

Participants and methods

Ethnographic case study including longitudinal follow-up of 24 patients aged 65 or older and prescribed ten or more items of medication. Our dataset includes: 562 hours of ethnographic observation across patients homes, community pharmacies and general practices; 47 audio-recorded interviews with patients about their lives and medicines practices; cultural probes (photographs, body maps, diaries and imagined 'wishful thinking' conversations); fieldnotes from regular home visits; telephone calls, and observation/video-recording of healthcare encounters. We apply a 'practice theory' lens to our analysis, illuminating what is being accomplished, why and by whom.

Results

All patients had developed strategies and routines for organising medicines into their lives, negotiating medicine taking to enable acceptable adherence and make their medicines manageable. Strategies adopted by patients often involved the use of 'do-it-yourself' dosette boxes. This required careful 'organising' work similar to that done by pharmacy staff preparing multicompartment compliance aids (MCCAs). Patients incorporated a range of approaches to manage supplies and flex their regimens to align with personal values and priorities. Practices of organising medicines are effortful, creative and often highly collaborative. Patients strive for adherence, but their organisational efforts privilege 'living with medicines' over taking medicines strictly 'as prescribed'.

Conclusions

Polypharmacy demands careful organising. The burden of organising polypharmacy always falls somewhere, whether undertaken by pharmacists as they prepare MCCAs or by patients at home. Greater appreciation among prescribers of the nature and complexity of this work may provide a useful point of departure for tackling the key issue that sustains it: polypharmacy.

SUBMITTER: Swinglehurst D

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8395269 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:AimTo conduct a meta-ethnographic study of the experiences, meanings and ways of 'dealing with' symptoms or a diagnosis of postnatal depression amongst migrant women living in high income countries.BackgroundPrevalence of postnatal depression is highest amongst women who are migrants. Yet many women do not seek help for their symptoms and health services do not always respond appropriately to migrant women's needs. Studies have reported migrant women's experiences of postnatal depression and it is timely to synthesise findings from these studies to understand how services can be improved.DesignA meta-ethnographic synthesis of 12 studies reported in 15 papers.Data sourcesFive databases were searched for papers published between January 1999 and February 2016.Review methodsThe quality of included studies was assessed using the Critical Appraisal Skills Program tool. The synthesis process was guided by the seven steps of meta-ethnography outlined by Noblit and Hare.FindingsFour key metaphors were identified: "I am alone, worried and angry-this is not me!"; 'Making sense of my feelings' 'Dealing with my feelings' and 'What I need to change the way I feel!'. Primarily women related their feelings to their position as a migrant and as women, often living in poor socio-economic circumstances and they were exhausted keeping up with expected commitments. Many women were resourceful, drawing on their personal strengths and family / community resources. All the studies reported that women experienced difficulties in accessing appropriate services.ConclusionThe meta-ethnographic study demonstrates the impact of migration on perinatal mental health, particularly for women lacking family support, who have no employment, a precarious migration status and/or relationship conflict. Migrant women are resourceful and this requires support through appropriate services. Further research is needed to evaluate effective support strategies for migrant women in the perinatal period.

Project description:BackgroundTreatment complexity rises in line with the number of drugs, single doses, and administration methods, thereby threatening patient adherence. Patients with multimorbidity often need flexible, individualised treatment regimens, but alterations during the course of treatment may further increase complexity. The objective of our study was to explore medication changes in older patients with multimorbidity and polypharmacy in general practice.MethodsWe retrospectively analysed data from the cluster-randomised PRIMUM trial (PRIoritisation of MUltimedication in Multimorbidity) conducted in 72 general practices. We developed an algorithm for active pharmaceutical ingredients (API), strength, dosage, and administration method to assess changes in physician-reported medication data during two intervals (baseline to six-months: ∆1; six- to nine-months: ∆2), analysed them descriptively at prescription and patient levels, and checked for intervention effects.ResultsOf 502 patients (median age 72 years, 52% female), 464 completed the study. Changes occurred in 98.6% of patients (changes were 19% more likely in the intervention group): API changes during ∆1 and ∆2 occurred in 414 (82.5%) and 338 (67.3%) of patients, dosage alterations in 372 (74.1%) and 296 (59.2%), and changes in API strength in 158 (31.5%) and 138 (27.5%) respectively. Administration method changed in 79 (16%) of patients in both ∆1 and ∆2. Simvastatin, metformin and aspirin were most frequently subject to alterations.ConclusionMedication regimens in older patients with multimorbidity and polypharmacy changed frequently. These are mostly due to discontinuations and dosage alterations, followed by additions and restarts. These findings cast doubt on the effectiveness of cross-sectional assessments of medication and support longitudinal assessments where possible.Trial registration1. Prospective registration: Trial registration number: NCT01171339 ; Name of registry: ClinicalTrials.gov; Date of registration: July 27, 2010; Date of enrolment of the first participant to the trial: August 12, 2010. 2. Peer reviewed trial registration: Trial registration number: ISRCTN99526053 ; Name of registry: Controlled Trials; Date of registration: August 31, 2010; Date of enrolment of the first participant to the trial: August 12, 2010.

Project description:BackgroundNurse-led monitoring of patients for signs and symptoms associated with documented 'undesirable effects' of medicines has potential to prevent avoidable harm, and optimise prescribing.InterventionThe Adverse Drug Reaction Profile for polypharmacy (ADRe-p) identifies and documents putative adverse effects of medicines commonly prescribed in primary care. Nurses address some problems, before passing ADRe-p to pharmacists and prescribers for review, in conjunction with prescriptions.ObjectivesWe investigated changes in: the number and nature of residents' problems as recorded on ADRe-p; prescription regimens; medicines optimisation: and healthcare costs. We explored aetiologies of problems identified and stakeholders' perspectives.Setting and participantsIn three UK care homes, 19 residents completed the study, December 2018 to May 2019. Two service users, three pharmacists, six nurses gave interviews.MethodsThis mixed-method process evaluation integrated data from residents' ADRe-ps and medicines charts, at the study's start and 5-10 weeks later.ResultsWe recruited three of 27 homes approached and 26 of 45 eligible residents; 19 completed ADRe-p at least twice. Clinical gains were identified for 17/19 residents (mean number of symptoms 3 SD 1.67, range 0-7). Examples included management of: pain (six residents), seizures (three), dyspnoea (one), diarrhoea (laxatives reduced, two), falls (two of five able to stand). One or more medicine was de-prescribed or dose reduced for 12/19 residents. ADRe administration and review cost ~£30 in staff time. ADRe-p helped carers and nurses bring residents' problems to the attention of prescribers.ImplicationsADRe-p relieved unnecessary suffering. It supported carers and nurses by providing a tool to engage with pharmacists and prescribers, and was the only observable strategy for multidisciplinary team working around medicines optimisation. ADRe-p improved care by: a) regular systematic checks and problem documentation; b) information transfer from care home staff to prescribers and pharmacists; c) recording changes.RegistrationNLM Identifier NCT03955133; ClinicalTrials.gov.

Project description:In 2010 the 'Polymedication Check' (PMC), a pharmacist-led medication review, was newly introduced to be delivered independently from the prescriber and reimbursed by the Swiss health insurances. This study aimed at evaluating the impact of this new cognitive service focusing on medicines use and patients' adherence in everyday life.This randomised controlled trial was conducted in 54 Swiss community pharmacies. Eligible patients used ?4 prescribed medicines over >3 months. The intervention group received a PMC at study start (T-0) and after 28 weeks (T-28) while the control group received only a PMC at T-28. Primary outcome measure was change in patients' objective adherence, calculated as Medication Possession Ratio (MPR) and Daily Polypharmacy Possession Ratio (DPPR), using refill data from the pharmacies and patient information of dosing. Subjective adherence was assessed as secondary outcome by self-report questionnaires (at T-0 and T-28) and telephone interviews (at T-2 and T-16), where participants estimated their overall adherence on a scale from 0-100%.A total of 450 patients were randomly allocated to intervention (N = 218, 48.4%) and control group (N = 232, 51.6%). Dropout rate was fairly low and comparable for both groups (N Int = 37 (17.0%), NCont = 41 (17.7%), p = 0.845). Main addressed drug-related problem (DRP) during PMC at T-0 was insufficient adherence to at least one medicine (N = 69, 26.7%). At T-28, 1020 chronic therapies fulfilled inclusion criteria for MPR calculation, representing 293 of 372 patients (78.8%). Mean MPR and adherence to polypharmacy (DPPR) for both groups were equally high (MPRInt = 88.3, SD = 19.03; MPRCont = 87.5, SD = 20.75 (p = 0.811) and DPPRInt = 88.0, SD = 13.31; DPPRCont = 87.5, SD = 20.75 (p = 0.906), respectively). Mean absolute change of subjective adherence between T-0 and T-2 was +1.03% in the intervention and -0.41% in the control group (p = 0.058). The number of patients reporting a change of their adherence of more than ±5 points on a scale 0-100% between T-0 and T-2 was significantly higher in the intervention group (NImprovement = 30; NWorsening = 14) than in the control group (NImprovement = 20; NWorsening = 24; p = 0.028).Through the PMC pharmacist were able to identify a significant number of DRPs. Participants showed high baseline objective adherence of 87.5%, providing little potential for improvement. Hence, no significant increase of objective adherence was observed. However, regarding changes in subjective adherence of more than ±5% the PMC showed a positive effect.Clinical trial registry database, NCT01739816; first entry on November 27, 2012.