Dataset Information

Opti-Med: the effectiveness of optimised clinical medication reviews in older people with 'geriatric giants' in general practice; study protocol of a cluster randomised controlled trial.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND: Inappropriate drug use has been identified as one of the most important problems affecting the quality of care in older people. Inappropriate drug use may increase the risk of the occurrence of 'geriatric giants' such as immobility, instability, incontinence and cognitive impairment. There are indications that clinical medication reviews (CMR) can reduce inappropriate drug use. However, CMRs have not yet been implemented at a large scale in primary care. An innovative medication review program in primary care will be developed which tackles the most important obstacles for a large scale implementation of CMRs. The aim of this study is to assess whether this CMR program is (cost-) effective compared with usual general practice care for older patients with geriatric symptoms with regard to quality of life and geriatric symptoms. METHODS: A cluster randomised controlled trial will be performed in 20 Dutch general practices including 500 patients. Patients of 65 years and older are eligible if they newly present with pre-specified geriatric symptoms in general practice and chronic use of at least one prescribed drug. GP practices will be stratified by practice size and randomly allocated to control (n?=?10) or intervention group (n?=?10). The intervention consists of CMRs which will be facilitated and prepared by an expert team consisting of a GP and a pharmacist. Primary outcome measures are patient's quality of life and the presence of self-reported geriatric symptoms during a follow-up period of 6 months. Secondary outcomes are costs of healthcare utilisation, feasibility, number of drug related problems, medication adherence and satisfaction with medication. DISCUSSION: This study is expected to add evidence on the (cost-) effectiveness of an optimally facilitated, prepared and structured CMR in comparison with usual care in older patients who present a geriatric symptom to their GP. The strength of this study is that it will be conducted in daily clinical practice. This improves the possibilities to implement the CMRs in the primary care setting on a large scale. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Netherlands Trial register: NTR4264.

SUBMITTER: Willeboordse F

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4240827 | biostudies-other | 2014

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-other

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Opti-Med: the effectiveness of optimised clinical medication reviews in older people with 'geriatric giants' in general practice; study protocol of a cluster randomised controlled trial.

Willeboordse Floor F Hugtenburg Jacqueline G JG van Dijk Liset L Bosmans Judith E JE de Vries Oscar J OJ Schellevis François G FG Elders Petra J M PJ

BMC geriatrics 20141118

<h4>Background</h4>Inappropriate drug use has been identified as one of the most important problems affecting the quality of care in older people. Inappropriate drug use may increase the risk of the occurrence of 'geriatric giants' such as immobility, instability, incontinence and cognitive impairment. There are indications that clinical medication reviews (CMR) can reduce inappropriate drug use. However, CMRs have not yet been implemented at a large scale in primary care. An innovative medicati ...[more]

PMID: 25407349

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundThe assessment of patients' medication literacy skills (i.e., abilities to access, comprehend and interact with medication-related information) is an important step in assisting clinicians to plan for appropriate care. Despite several attempts by researchers to develop measures of medication literacy, an instrument tailored to the specific needs of older adults remains a significant shortfall. Therefore, an interprofessional team that included a citizen co-researcher conceptualized a new standardised measure of medication literacy-the MEDedication Literacy Assessment of Geriatric patients and informal caregivers (MED-fLAG). MED-fLAG was designed as a three-dimensional self-reported measure of functional, interactive and critical skills. This study describes the conceptualization process and provides the results of an evaluation of MED-fLAG's content validity, acceptability, and feasibility during a hospital stay.MethodsMED-fLAG was developed in accordance with the guidance on scale development and standards for good content validity, by using the following steps: (I) conceptualization of a provisional version of MED-fLAG; (II) iterative qualitative evaluation of its content validity by older adults, informal caregivers and healthcare professionals.ResultsThe qualitative assessment of the initial 54-item MED-fLAG was conducted in 36 participants, namely 13 home-dwelling older adults and/or informal caregivers and 23 healthcare professionals. Six rounds of revisions were performed to achieve content validity and to propose a 56-item revised MED-fLAG. Participants reported benefits of using a standardized assessment of medication literacy during a hospital stay but warned about certain limitations and prerequisites. The extent to which MED-fLAG could be integrated into discharge planning needs to be further investigated.ConclusionsMED-fLAG is the first medication literacy measure tailored to the specific needs of older patients and informal caregivers. A unique feature of this measure is that it includes prescribed and non-prescribed medications, irrespective of the galenic form. Additional studies are required to evaluate the other measurement properties of MED-fLAG, and to reduce the number of items before considering its clinical application.

Project description:BackgroundMobile text messaging and medication monitors (medication monitor boxes) have the potential to improve adherence to tuberculosis (TB) treatment and reduce the need for directly observed treatment (DOT), but to our knowledge they have not been properly evaluated in TB patients. We assessed the effectiveness of text messaging and medication monitors to improve medication adherence in TB patients.Methods and findingsIn a pragmatic cluster-randomised trial, 36 districts/counties (each with at least 300 active pulmonary TB patients registered in 2009) within the provinces of Heilongjiang, Jiangsu, Hunan, and Chongqing, China, were randomised using stratification and restriction to one of four case-management approaches in which patients received reminders via text messages, a medication monitor, combined, or neither (control). Patients in the intervention arms received reminders to take their drugs and reminders for monthly follow-up visits, and the managing doctor was recommended to switch patients with adherence problems to more intensive management or DOT. In all arms, patients took medications out of a medication monitor box, which recorded when the box was opened, but the box gave reminders only in the medication monitor and combined arms. Patients were followed up for 6 mo. The primary endpoint was the percentage of patient-months on TB treatment where at least 20% of doses were missed as measured by pill count and failure to open the medication monitor box. Secondary endpoints included additional adherence and standard treatment outcome measures. Interventions were not masked to study staff and patients. From 1 June 2011 to 7 March 2012, 4,292 new pulmonary TB patients were enrolled across the 36 clusters. A total of 119 patients (by arm: 33 control, 33 text messaging, 23 medication monitor, 30 combined) withdrew from the study in the first month because they were reassessed as not having TB by their managing doctor (61 patients) or were switched to a different treatment model because of hospitalisation or travel (58 patients), leaving 4,173 TB patients (by arm: 1,104 control, 1,008 text messaging, 997 medication monitor, 1,064 combined). The cluster geometric mean of the percentage of patient-months on TB treatment where at least 20% of doses were missed was 29.9% in the control arm; in comparison, this percentage was 27.3% in the text messaging arm (adjusted mean ratio [aMR] 0.94, 95% CI 0.71, 1.24), 17.0% in the medication monitor arm (aMR 0.58, 95% CI 0.42, 0.79), and 13.9% in the combined arm (aMR 0.49, 95% CI 0.27, 0.88). Patient loss to follow-up was lower in the text messaging arm than the control arm (aMR 0.42, 95% CI 0.18-0.98). Equipment malfunction or operation error was reported in all study arms. Analyses separating patients with and without medication monitor problems did not change the results. Initiation of intensive management was underutilised.ConclusionsThis study is the first to our knowledge to utilise a randomised trial design to demonstrate the effectiveness of a medication monitor to improve medication adherence in TB patients. Reminders from medication monitors improved medication adherence in TB patients, but text messaging reminders did not. In a setting such as China where universal use of DOT is not feasible, innovative approaches to support patients in adhering to TB treatment, such as this, are needed.Trial registrationCurrent Controlled Trials, ISRCTN46846388.

Project description:BackgroundEvidence regarding clinically relevant effects of interventions aiming at reducing polypharmacy is weak, especially for the primary care setting. This study was initiated with the objective to achieve clinical benefits for older patients (aged 75+) by means of evidence-based reduction of polypharmacy (defined as ≥8 prescribed drugs) and inappropriate prescribing in general practice.MethodsThe cluster-randomised controlled trial involved general practitioners and patients in a northern-Italian region. The intervention consisted of a review of patient's medication regimens by three experts who gave specific recommendations for drug discontinuation. Main outcome measures were non-elective hospital admissions or death within 24 months (composite primary endpoint). Secondary outcomes were drug numbers, hospital admissions, mortality, falls, fractures, quality of life, affective status, cognitive function.ResultsTwenty-two GPs/307 patients participated in the intervention group, 21 GPs/272 patients in the control group. One hundred twenty-five patients (40.7%) experienced the primary outcome in the intervention group, 87 patients (32.0%) in the control group. The adjusted rates of occurrence of the primary outcome did not differ significantly between the study groups (intention-to-treat analysis: adjusted odds ratio 1.46, 95%CI 0.99-2.18, p = 0.06; per-protocol analysis: adjusted OR 1.33, 95%CI 0.87-2.04, p = 0.2). Hospitalisations as single endpoint occurred more frequently in the intervention group according to the unadjusted analysis (OR 1.61, 95%CI 1.03-2.51, p = 0.04) but not in the adjusted analysis (OR 1.39, 95%CI 0.95-2.03, p = 0.09). Falls occurred less frequently in the intervention group (adjusted OR 0.55, 95%CI 0.31-0.98; p = 0.04). No significant differences were found regarding the other outcomes. Definitive discontinuation was obtained for 67 (16.0%) of 419 drugs rated as inappropriate. About 6% of the prescribed drugs were PIMs.ConclusionsNo conclusive effects were found regarding mortality and non-elective hospitalisations as composite respectively single endpoints. Falls were significantly reduced in the intervention group, although definitive discontinuation was achieved for only one out of six inappropriate drugs. These results indicate that (1) even a modest reduction of inappropriate medications may entail positive clinical effects, and that (2) focusing on evidence-based new drug prescriptions and prevention of polypharmacy may be more effective than deprescribing.Trial registrationCurrent Controlled Trials (ID ISRCTN: 38449870), date: 11/09/2013.

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:BackgroundThere is limited knowledge regarding the process of deprescribing psychotropic drugs to people with dementia (PwD) conducted by general practitioners (GP). We investigated the impact of a multicomponent intervention, emphasizing medication reviews, on psychotropic drugs and behavioral and psychological symptoms (BPSD) in home-dwelling PwD and quantified change in patient-GP communication evaluated by their informal caregivers.MethodsLIVE@Home.Path is a stepped-wedge closed-cohort cluster randomized controlled trial for people with mild to moderate dementia aged ≥65 and their informal caregivers (dyads) in Norway. Complementary to health care as usual (control condition), municipal coordinators implemented the multicomponent LIVE intervention: Learning, Innovation, Volunteer support, and Empowerment (including medication review by the PwD's regular GPs). Block-randomization was used to allocate dyads in three groups receiving the intervention sequentially in periods of 6 months duration. Prepandemic data from the first period is reported, resulting in a 1:2 intervention-to-control ratio. Primary outcome was change in psychotropic drug use. Secondary outcomes were changes in BPSD by Neuropsychiatric Inventory and Cornell Scale of Depression in Dementia and patient-GP communication by an adaption of the Clinical Global Impression of Change.ResultsFour hundred thirty-eight dyads were screened, 280 included, and 237 participated at 6 months (intervention group n=67; control condition n=170). At baseline, 63% used psychotropic medication regularly: antidementia drugs (47%), antidepressants (13%), hypnotics/sedatives (13%), antipsychotics (5%), and anxiolytics (2%). At 6 months, medication reviews were more frequently conducted in the intervention group compared to control (66% vs 42%, P=0.001). We found no differences regarding a change in drug use and BPSD. Patient-GP communication enhanced in the intervention group (mean score 0.95 [standard deviation 1.68] vs 0.41 [1.34], P=0.022). In the intervention group, control group, and overall sample, the informal caregivers of those who had their medications reviewed reported improved patient-GP communication compared to those who did not.ConclusionsChange in psychotropic drug use and BPSD did not differ, even though patient-GP communication improved with medication reviews. Restricted psychotropic drug use among PwD likely reflects more judicious prescribing practices in recent years. Nevertheless, medication reviews could be cultivated to optimize pharmacologic treatment for this complex population.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov : NCT04043364 ; registered 15/03/2019.

Project description:ObjectiveSystematic reviews can include cluster-randomised controlled trials (C-RCTs), which require different analysis compared with standard individual-randomised controlled trials. However, it is not known whether review authors follow the methodological and reporting guidance when including these trials. The aim of this study was to assess the methodological and reporting practice of Cochrane reviews that included C-RCTs against criteria developed from existing guidance.MethodsCriteria were developed, based on methodological literature and personal experience supervising review production and quality. Criteria were grouped into four themes: identifying, reporting, assessing risk of bias, and analysing C-RCTs. The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews was searched (2nd December 2013), and the 50 most recent reviews that included C-RCTs were retrieved. Each review was then assessed using the criteria.ResultsThe 50 reviews we identified were published by 26 Cochrane Review Groups between June 2013 and November 2013. For identifying C-RCTs, only 56% identified that C-RCTs were eligible for inclusion in the review in the eligibility criteria. For reporting C-RCTs, only eight (24%) of the 33 reviews reported the method of cluster adjustment for their included C-RCTs. For assessing risk of bias, only one review assessed all five C-RCT-specific risk-of-bias criteria. For analysing C-RCTs, of the 27 reviews that presented unadjusted data, only nine (33%) provided a warning that confidence intervals may be artificially narrow. Of the 34 reviews that reported data from unadjusted C-RCTs, only 13 (38%) excluded the unadjusted results from the meta-analyses.ConclusionsThe methodological and reporting practices in Cochrane reviews incorporating C-RCTs could be greatly improved, particularly with regard to analyses. Criteria developed as part of the current study could be used by review authors or editors to identify errors and improve the quality of published systematic reviews incorporating C-RCTs.

Dataset Information

Opti-Med: the effectiveness of optimised clinical medication reviews in older people with 'geriatric giants' in general practice; study protocol of a cluster randomised controlled trial.

Publications

Opti-Med: the effectiveness of optimised clinical medication reviews in older people with 'geriatric giants' in general practice; study protocol of a cluster randomised controlled trial.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets