Dataset Information

Use of an electronic medication management support system in patients with polypharmacy in general practice: study protocol of a quantitative process evaluation of the AdAM trial

ABSTRACT:

Background:

Interventional studies on polypharmacy often fail to significantly improve patient-relevant outcomes, or confine themselves to measuring surrogate parameters. Interventions and settings are complex, with many factors affecting results. The AdAM study’s aim is to reduce hospitalization and death by requiring general practitioners (GPs) to use a computerized decision-support system (CDSS). The study will undergo a process evaluation to identify factors for successful implementation and to assess whether the intervention was implemented as intended.

Objective:

To evaluate our complex intervention, based on the Medical Research Council’s guideline dimensions.

Research Questions:

We will assess implementation (reach, fidelity, dose, tailoring) by asking: (1) Who took part in the intervention (proportion of GPs using the CDSS, proportion of patients enrolled in them)? Information on GPs’ and patients’ characteristics will also be collected. (2) How many and which medication alerts were dealt with? (3) Was the intervention implemented as intended? (4) On what days did GPs use the intervention tool?

Methods:

The process evaluation is part of a stepped-wedge cluster-randomized controlled trial. Characteristics of practices, GPs and patients using the CDSS will be compared with the non-participating population. CDSS log data will be analyzed to evaluate how the number of medication alerts changed between baseline and 2 months later, and to identify the kind of alerts that were dealt with. Comparison of enrolled patients on weekdays versus weekends will shed light on GPs’ use of the CDSS in the absence or presence of patients. Outcomes will be presented using descriptive statistics, and significance tests will be used to identify associations between them. We will conduct subgroup analyses, including time effects to account for software improvements.

Discussion:

This study protocol is the basis for conducting analyses of the quantitative process evaluation. By providing insight into how GPs conduct medication reviews, the evaluation will provide context to the trial results and support their interpretation. The evaluation relies on the proper documentation by GPs, potentially limiting its explanatory power.

SUBMITTER: Brunn R

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8796070 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:IntroductionClinically complex patients often require multiple medications. Polypharmacy is associated with inappropriate prescriptions, which may lead to negative outcomes. Few effective tools are available to help physicians optimise patient medication. This study assesses whether an electronic medication management support system (eMMa) reduces hospitalisation and mortality and improves prescription quality/safety in patients with polypharmacy.Methods and analysisPlanned design: pragmatic, parallel cluster-randomised controlled trial; general practices as randomisation unit; patients as analysis unit. As practice recruitment was poor, we included additional data to our primary endpoint analysis for practices and quarters from October 2017 to March 2021. Since randomisation was performed in waves, final study design corresponds to a stepped-wedge design with open cohort and step-length of one quarter.Scopegeneral practices, Westphalia-Lippe (Germany), caring for BARMER health fund-covered patients.Populationpatients (≥18 years) with polypharmacy (≥5 prescriptions).Sample sizeinitially, 32 patients from each of 539 practices were required for each study arm (17 200 patients/arm), but only 688 practices were randomised after 2 years of recruitment. Design change ensures that 80% power is nonetheless achieved.Interventioncomplex intervention eMMa.Follow-upat least five quarters/cluster (practice). recruitment: practices recruited/randomised at different times; after follow-up, control group practices may access eMMa.Outcomesprimary endpoint is all-cause mortality and hospitalisation; secondary endpoints are number of potentially inappropriate medications, cause-specific hospitalisation preceded by high-risk prescribing and medication underuse.Statistical analysisprimary and secondary outcomes are measured quarterly at patient level. A generalised linear mixed-effect model and repeated patient measurements are used to consider patient clusters within practices. Time and intervention group are considered fixed factors; variation between practices and patients is fitted as random effects. Intention-to-treat principle is used to analyse primary and key secondary endpoints.Ethics and disseminationTrial approved by Ethics Commission of North-Rhine Medical Association. Results will be disseminated through workshops, peer-reviewed publications, local and international conferences.Trial registrationNCT03430336. ClinicalTrials.gov (https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03430336).

Project description:Importance:Complex medication regimens pose self-management challenges, particularly among populations with low levels of health literacy. Objective:To test medication management tools delivered through a commercial electronic health record (EHR) with and without a nurse-led education intervention. Design, Setting, and Participants:This 3-group cluster randomized clinical trial was performed in community health centers in Chicago, Illinois. Participants included 794 patients with hypertension who self-reported using 3 or more medications concurrently (for any purpose). Data were collected from April 30, 2012, through February 29, 2016, and analyzed by intention to treat. Interventions:Clinics were randomly assigned to to groups: electronic health record-based medication management tools (medication review sheets at visit check-in, lay medication information sheets printed after visits; EHR-alone group), EHR-based tools plus nurse-led medication management support (EHR plus education group), or usual care. Main Outcomes and Measures:Outcomes at 12 months included systolic blood pressure (primary outcome), medication reconciliation, knowledge of drug indications, understanding of medication instructions and dosing, and self-reported medication adherence. Medication outcomes were assessed for all hypertension prescriptions, all prescriptions to treat chronic disease, and all medications. Results:Among the 794 participants (68.6% women; mean [SD] age, 52.7 [9.6] years), systolic blood pressure at 12 months was greater in the EHR-alone group compared with the usual care group by 3.6 mm Hg (95% CI, 0.3 to 6.9 mm Hg). Systolic blood pressure in the EHR plus education group was not significantly lower compared with the usual care group (difference, -2.0 mm Hg; 95% CI, -5.2 to 1.3 mm Hg) but was lower compared with the EHR-alone group (-5.6 mm Hg; 95% CI, -8.8 to -2.4 mm Hg). At 12 months, hypertension medication reconciliation was improved in the EHR-alone group (adjusted odds ratio [OR], 1.8; 95% CI, 1.1 to 2.9) and the EHR plus education group (adjusted odds ratio [OR], 2.0; 95% CI, 1.3 to 3.3) compared with usual care. Understanding of medication instructions and dosing was greater in the EHR plus education group than the usual care group for hypertension medications (OR, 2.3; 95% CI, 1.1 to 4.8) and all medications combined (OR, 1.7; 95% CI, 1.0 to 2.8). Compared with usual care, the EHR tools alone and EHR plus education interventions did not improve hypertension medication adherence (OR, 0.9; 95% CI, 0.6-1.4 for both) or knowledge of chronic drug indications (OR for EHR tools alone, 1.0 [95% CI, 0.6 to 1.5] and OR for EHR plus education, 1.1 [95% CI, 0.7-1.7]). Conclusions and Relevance:The study found that EHR tools in isolation improved medication reconciliation but worsened blood pressure. Combining these tools with nurse-led support suggested improved understanding of medication instructions and dosing but did not lower blood pressure compared with usual care. Trial Registration:ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01578577.

Project description:BackgroundImproving medication safety is a major concern in primary care settings worldwide. The Salford Medication safety dASHboard (SMASH) intervention provided general practices in Salford (Greater Manchester, UK) with feedback on their safe prescribing and monitoring of medications through an online dashboard, and input from practice-based trained clinical pharmacists. In this study we explored how staff working in general practices used the SMASH dashboard to improve medication safety, through interactions with the dashboard to identify potential medication safety hazards and their workflow to resolve identified hazards.MethodsWe used a mixed-methods study design involving quantitative data from dashboard user interaction logs from 43 general practices during the first year of receiving the SMASH intervention, and qualitative data from semi-structured interviews with 22 pharmacists and physicians from 18 practices in Salford.ResultsPractices interacted with the dashboard a median of 12.0 (interquartile range, 5.0-15.2) times per month during the first quarter of use to identify and resolve potential medication safety hazards, typically starting with the most prevalent hazards or those they perceived to be most serious. Having observed a potential hazard, pharmacists and practice staff worked together to resolve that in a sequence of steps (1) verifying the dashboard information, (2) reviewing the patient's clinical records, and (3) deciding potential changes to the patient's medicines. Over time, dashboard use transitioned towards regular but less frequent (median of 5.5 [3.5-7.9] times per month) checks to identify and resolve new cases. The frequency of dashboard use was higher in practices with a larger number of at-risk patients. In 24 (56%) practices only pharmacists used the dashboard; in 12 (28%) use by other practice staff increased as pharmacist use declined after the initial intervention period; and in 7 (16%) there was mixed use by both pharmacists and practice staff over time.ConclusionsAn online medication safety dashboard enabled pharmacists to identify patients at risk of potentially hazardous prescribing. They subsequently worked with GPs to resolve risks on a case-by-case basis, but there were marked variations in processes between some practices. Workload diminished over time as it shifted towards resolving new cases of hazardous prescribing.

Project description:BackgroundPatient-reported outcomes (PROs) are increasingly mandated in kidney care to incorporate patients' perspectives.ObjectivesWe assessed whether educational support for clinicians using electronic (e)PROs could enhance person-centered care.DesignA process evaluation, using a mixed methods longitudinal comparative concurrent design was undertaken of educational support to clinicians on routine use of ePROs. In two urban home dialysis clinics in Alberta, Canada, patients completed ePROs. At the implementation site, clinicians were provided with ePROs and clinician-oriented education via voluntary workshops. At the non-implementation site, neither were provided. Person-centered care was measured using the Patient Assessment of Chronic Illness Care-20 (PACIC-20).MethodsLongitudinal structural equation models (SEMs) compared change in overall PACIC scores. The interpretive description approach, using thematic analysis of qualitative data, further evaluated processes of implementation.ResultsData were collected from questionnaires completed by 543 patients, 4 workshops, 15 focus groups, and 37 interviews. There was no overall difference in person-centered care throughout the study, including after delivery of workshops. The longitudinal SEMs revealed substantial individual-level variability in overall PACIC trajectories. However, there was no improvement at the implementation site and no difference between the sites during both the pre- and post-workshop periods. Similar results were obtained for each PACIC domain. Qualitative analysis provided insights into why there was no substantial difference between sites: (1) clinicians wanted to see kidney symptoms, not quality of life, (2) workshops were tailored to clinicians' educational needs, not patients' needs, and (3) variable use of ePRO data by clinicians.ConclusionTraining clinicians on use of ePROs is complex and likely only part of what is required to enhance person-centered care.RegistrationNCT03149328. https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03149328.

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:BackgroundPatient awareness surveys on polypharmacy have been reported previously, but no previous study has examined the effects of sending feedback to health professionals on reducing medication use. Our study aimed to conduct a patient survey to examine factors contributing to polypharmacy, feedback the results to health professionals, and analyze the resulting changes in the number of polypharmacy patients and prescribed medications.MethodsAfter conducting a questionnaire survey of patients in Study 1, we provided its results to the healthcare professionals, and then surveyed the number of polypharmacy patients and oral medications using a before-after comparative study design in Study 2. In Study 1, we examined polypharmacy and its contributing factors by performing logistic regression analysis. In Study 2, we performed a t-test and a chi-square test.ResultsIn the questionnaire survey, significant differences were found in the following 3 items: age (odds ratio (OR) = 3.14; 95% confidence interval (CI) = 2.01-4.91), number of medical institutions (OR = 2.34; 95%CI = 1.50-3.64), and patients' difficulty with asking their doctors to deprescribe their medications (OR = 2.21; 95%CI = 1.25-3.90). After the feedback, the number of polypharmacy patients decreased from 175 to 159 individuals and the mean number of prescribed medications per patient decreased from 8.2 to 7.7 (p < 0.001, respectively).ConclusionsProviding feedback to health professionals on polypharmacy survey results may lead to a decrease in the number of polypharmacy patients. Factors contributing to polypharmacy included age (75 years or older), the number of medical institutions (2 or more institutions), and patients' difficulty with asking their physicians to deprescribe their medications. Feedback to health professionals reduced the percentage of polypharmacy patients and the number of prescribed medications.Trial registrationUMIN. Registered 21 June 2020 - Retrospectively registered, https://www.umin.ac.jp/ctr/index-j.htm.